To Be or not to Be: Is Scientology Worth Saving?

I recently helped my dad fill out a medical level-of-care form. Choices ranged from doing everything humanly possible to keep the patient alive, to “do not resuscitate.” Followers of Scientology face similar choices. Lots would like to keep the church alive. Many of you reading this have chosen to step away from the patient.

Before we decide which box to check, however, two separate issues must be considered. The first is the physical Church of Scientology, including all of its real estate, staff, and ongoing concerns. The second is LRH’s complete body of written and spoken work.

LRH’s Body of Work

Everyone agrees LRH was a prolific writer. Whether what he wrote was pure fantasy or not, we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility that there exist kernels of truth, and resist the urge to throw out the baby with the bath water.

My local ice cream maker is a crazy old hippie. I don’t care, however, that he didn’t invent the product all by himself, doesn’t add enough marshmallows to his rocky road, and that his sherbet sucks. I just know he makes the creamiest, best chocolate ice cream in town.

LRH may have suffered from bouts of insanity and he may have been bi-polar. He may have been delusional from day one. He clearly wasn’t the saint the present day church would have us believe.

Even if the Church of Scientology crumbles and dies, LRH’s work will live on. Physical buildings can be destroyed. Ideas and beliefs are harder to purge.

The Basics

For me, the real basics were those concepts to which I was exposed when I was first introduced to Scientology: The ARC triangle; TR’s and the communication formula; the Tone Scale; and even the more basic ethics tech. Stats and conditions and the Data Series were a revelation.

I appreciated the theory that traumatic incidents from the past effected present day behavior. Dianetics and the Grades seemed like a systematic approach to handling these unwanted conditions that were screwing me up.

Did I justify tech and policy and lectures that didn’t make sense? You bet. Did I become disillusioned of becoming “clear” as described in Dianetics? Yep. At every level and on every course, I knocked my head on ideas and principles that were “over my head” or “just didn’t seem right.” Eventually, I even became disabused of the notion that the e-meter was effective at locating “charged” areas in need of handling.

Many people have had wins in auditing. Many are convinced auditing changed their lives. Many go on hoping. Others harbor major resentment at being ripped-off years ago. Whichever is the case, validate your wins, and accept your losses.

The Not-So-Basics

Many believe the grade chart levels beyond Clear are Fantasyland, and OT 3 is a 1950’s space opera. Do these upper levels produce results? Not as advertised. Worth saving? Certainly not for the majority of these readers. Might anything of value in the OT bands be salvaged? Not that I can spot.

Does this mean Jane from Jacksonville shouldn’t continue to research and explore what LRH started and open up her own practice? Not at all. All the power to you, Jane. You go girl. (Just be sure to let me know when you finally figure out how to go exterior at-will with full perceptics.)

Logical Thinking

“LRH was crazy and therefore everything he wrote is rubbish” sounds reasonable but isn’t logical. “LRH wrote Dianetics. LRH’s research was flawed. Therefore people aren’t affected by past trauma,” is another example of illogical thinking. Everything he wrote may very well be garbage, and past trauma may have nothing to do with present time neurosis. But logically, we can’t jump to this conclusion.

Unlike what passes for Scientology education, people should reject those ideas which don’t make sense, and retain those that do.

Kudos to Chris Shelton and his essays on critical thinking.

Religion and Keeping Scientology Working

All religious beliefs and practices eventually become set in stone and closed to revision and interpretation by all but a select few. Most churches won’t admit to this in writing. The Church of Scientology is an exception.

LRH touted KSW—Keeping Scientology Working—as the only way to preserve the integrity and workability of his technology. What this policy did was close the door to growth and development and hasten the church’s demise. In any other field—be it mental health or the energy industry—prohibiting R & D (research and development) would be organizational suicide and never be accepted.

LRH’s work will not survive under the cloak of religion—especially as practiced by its present regime. Though blasphemous to the faithful, if the Church of Scientology has any future, it will be at the hands of independent mental health practitioners, and not under the auspices of religion.

In Summary

The Church of Scientology in its current incarnation is not worth saving. Salvaging bits and pieces of LRH’s tech and policy is.

Drop the copyrights, open up LRH’s work to the public, and allow people to pick and choose the tech and policy they feel is useful. Use an e-meter. Or don’t. Conduct actual scientific studies using standard practices. Or don’t. Apply the condition of emergency to your business. Or don’t. Receive auditing from an ex-Class 8 living in rural Idaho. Or not. Makes no difference to me.

That Scientology is a religion is debatable. I can argue for both sides. Either way, religion may have reached the end of its useful life in this world, especially one in which salvation costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and tears families apart.

Related

Comments

what a vantage point you have, from the inside. How you manage to operate in the confines and then turn out these brilliant articles like an embed journalist – thank you! Good job keeping your work in plain English (not so easy, keeping it clean, after spending your days surrounded by that bubble-talk of the cult-language known as Scientology)
Your work is appealing for the outside dwellers such as ourselves, but uniquely valuable for that beleaguered individual caught inside and about to make that adventurous leap into the wilderness of the real world. LRH did such a good job, keeping his followers intimidated and focused on the “safe and comfortable” interior of his belief-system, in other words, blinded. But, your work does reveal all that. I think it has the potential to restore reason right where reason was denied, thus encouraging that person to take that leap and breach the bubble walls, becoming free indeed.
Free, indeed.
And, I appreciate your mention of Chris Shelton, too. You two are certainly on the same page, providing these tools of self-empowerment.
So, let’s get the book out. Or, the booklet, if that’s how it winds up. Need a title? How about:

The Liberated scientologists’ Guide to the Galaxy, by Terra Cognita. I’d be proud to ℅-author a thing like that. You call the shots, baby, you are on-target.

Beezly: I thought I’d already replied to you but apparently not. Thanks for your kind words! I like your working title for my book, but honestly, I have no desire to write one. Many other good ones have already been written.

Your work reminds me of the way I was thinking when I made the move to get out.
In other words,
this stuff is actually a means of breaking OUT.

If there was a way to get the booklet inside…to breach the bubble?
That word of encouragement for the isolated individual inside,
just might bust somebody out right now, today.

So, …you inspire me. If you would let me use your stuff…
Well, would that be cool with you? I love your Fear article most of all.
Once a finished product was ready,
it would then have to be delivered somehow… Maybe just hand them out in front of big blue building, print a couple thousand and mail them in bulk to correspondents near or in orgs all over the world. But, especially LA, Clearwater and Saint Hill, right? I think it would actually work.

mwesten – That site could become a rabbit hole – a topic a day? laughter
Yesterday I read “cognitive dissonance and today the “Barnum effect”. The long form name of the site is “The Skeptics Dictionary” – right up my alley – laughter

Scientology is a con.
Truth.
And, they get nasty about it.
They demand everything. They offer an equally monumental lie.
They are heartless in their deception.

They isolate you.

And, yes, that makes you an easy meal.
For they are sharks, kings of the con game.

End of Story, the rest being details.

I am uneasy, remembering my early days out, when I still was talking about the good things scientology has to offer, the parts that make sense. I believed that believing was a good thing. “True for me” and all that crap, crap to keep me thinking between the lines, not realizing that I wasn’t thinking for myself at all.
NOT BELIEVING is thinking for yourself. Questioning the source is thinking for your Self.

Scientology wants me believe that it “works”. I refuse. If there is a kernel of truth to the con, they do apply said truth towards attaining the prime directive: get the cash.
And I refuse to believe that LRH ever had the intention of setting anyone free. The whole deal is one carefully, very elaborately designed and orchestrated trap, where people are treated like tokens, and destined to be discarded at random will. I am left with nothing more to say.

And the circle goes round and round. The teapot is still here, waiting to be filled with the proof of claims that rremain unfounded. And still the pot sits empty, unable to fill a cuppa. Despite forever lacking such, the Independents rise again and again and again.

There is not much to add after reading Peter Torres’ dissection. All I can say is at some point I realized that there was nothing worth “saving” because each piece of the “tech” was so riddled with lies that to pull the truth out of it was more work than discovering the truth free of the constraints required by “the tech”.

I had wins early in scientology, simply by communicating and meeting friends. The further I got into scientology the more screwed up I got and the more confused I got.

I can honestly say that I have had lots more wins in high school and college, and a gazillion more wins just living life than those I had in scientology.

The only thing I can say that scientology truly and thoroughly taught me is that I cannot be constrained by someone else’s idea of who I should be and that anyone who looks down on me for who I am is not truly my friend. It taught me that by the poor example set in scientology of attempting to constrain me and by causing people to look down on me and me to look down on others.

In the books there is a lot I like. For me personally the study tech, the data evaluation tech was amazing. However while being Flag staff seeing the physical and mental abuse of people was disgusting. I had issue with the tapes where LRH talks 2 hrs and hardly any information there I preferred his books. I disagree how we handled little immature CMO kids calling them “sir” etc while they were kids with no parents and no life experience. There is something wrong with the brutal justice system. I am all for the Free Zone and I Am trying to rediscover Scientology without church and find out what works for me. I feel I am a more capable and happier being since I blew Flag.

Hello. I was an Intern as a Supervisor at Flag at the time you left. The reason I remember you, even though I don’t believe I ever met you, is this:

Part of my Internship as a Supervisor was to be an Intern Supervisor, whose job it was to Supervise auditor interns. One of the auditor interns whom I supervised was Martha Levine, who was one of your auditors.

Martha had a really high regard for you, and as I recall, she was somewhat mystified by the fact that you had been declared. As far as I know she is still a church member.

I would be interested to know your story, because at the time I didn’t understand why someone who an auditor had such a high regard for would be declared. Of course I have been out for over six years now, so I completely understand how it would happen. But if you would be interested to somehow fill me in on what happened specifically with you, l would be interested to find out.

Getting rid of buildings is easy. LRH written material is likely to remain, unless we have massive book burning, which I would never support. It will take many generations to get rid of the interpretations and practices of Scientologists – suspicion of government/health/mental health (alignment with anti-vaxx movement) that separates them from their communities, the practice of disconnection, victimization and abuse of people (those who dare to act independently, fall ill, question the authority of the Church, etc.), the constant fear of members that they will lose their opportunity for salvation, and a conscious or unconscious bias against certain people or groups.

There is a woman in my area that is an ex-Scientologist who posts actively on political blogs. She left Scientology many years ago. However, her postings are full of Scientology references and negative attitudes. She refers to Scientology as a cult, but Scientology seems to be ingrained in how she views the world around her, which is fairly negative. I see no difference in her views of the world from people I know that are still involved in Scientology. She has adopted Scientology views completely as her own and has not wavered from that at all. It’s as though she has never left and still taking direction from the Church.

Totally agree that the CO$ is not worth saving at this point. It’s application of LRH Policy is done as a matter of convenience when it fits what they want. Otherwise it’s ignored. I dread to imagine what passes for “tech” these days. The justice apparatus of Scientology is the most discombobulated kangaroo court being run by DBs (like IJC), idiots and kids (MAAs) who only know fanaticism. I get it, OSA is pulling their strings and OSA’s are daily yanked on by Miscavige or his right hand RTC-Suppressor. Truly, should be flushed down a toilet.

I think if Scientology, the philosophy is to survive, it will only do so if LRH policies are stripped of their doomsday, authoritarian fanatics down to simple basic truths. LRH said that the concept of “greatest good” is how you measure good and evil, the greatest of goods being at the top and evil at the bottom. Unfortunately, greatest good to Hitler was to kill millions. Greatest good to Scientology is to rip up familys, relationships and livelihoods to preserve the leader, David Miscavige, to protect his wealth and the fact that he has access to mindless slaves and it was all earned by stepping on the backs of people who trusted him. Paying public are just at risk as anyone else because anyone, no matter their donation level or production record can be discarded on a whim.

Today, with all I know, all I’ve seen and been part of myself, I can say that Scientology ranks among, if not the highest, corrupt, self-serving and evil organizations. The Div 1/Div 20/OSA apparatus and many parts of management are Westboro Baptists in sheep’s clothing, except I believe Miscaviges hate and paranoia make him far more deadly. You can pretty much guarantee that if they are promoting human rights, then they are violating them. They are a church of false PR.

ANYTHING which can be perceived as a threat to any aspect of the church is deemed a threat. Orgs and OSA continually run risk analysis and have a scoring system which ranks individuals and groups based on their potential threat or danger to the organization.

When you put this in perspective, an individual or his family or friends simply do not compare to almighty Church of Scientology, therefore they are expendable.

That’s exactly my experience. You are 100% expendable, no matter your rank, production record or donation status. And they don’t even need proof. Someone can simply accuse you of something and they run with it, especially if it mentions Marty, Mike or these days, Chris, Ronald, etc. No Comm Ev, no ethics gradients, just total Stasi beingness.

It’s like every time Mike Rinder posts more leaks from orgs, CO$ internally intensifies and increases it’s witch hunt to burn it’s members that don’t walk right, clap at the appropriate time or give money. It truly is vicious. DM kind of reminds me of Torquemada and his idiot henchmen in OSA, the DB IJC, et al need to be strung up alongside him at the gallows.

Good luck finding a gallows and rope strong enough to string up Two Tons Of Fun Mike Ellis, the IJC. Besides, we’ll all be cheated when he has a massive heart attack trying to climb the stairs to the rope.

LRH engaged in Pseudo Science, his “research” was not existing, his “facts” are mix of platitudes and outright falsehoods and the “breakthroughs” nothing but a bunch of hype to cover up the lies behind it.
Many here have taken the naivety and ignorance of this essay apart. It is typical for early stages of compression there is not much to add.
Just one thing. Whoever claims Scientology as beneficial for an individual needs to define a standard on how to determine a measure an individual has made progress.
What measure is that? A person coming up of session and being in euphoria? A person talking about how “life changing” this was? Without follow up how the person’s life actually has changed and where the euphoria led to we will never know.
One thing we do know. As we follow up the “wins” from the tech” we find it puts a person into an ever higher states of delusion, LRH was no exception, and they end up chasing ghosts. – And I mean this quite literally. The weirdness of these “OT Committees” their unreality and their delusional bubble in which they live is not accident. It is the product of the “Tech”.
If the goal of therapy and personal improvement is to become utterly delusional, Scientology Tech is an undeniable complete and utter success.

I concur Gerhard. Two or three years ago I would have been impressed and idealistic; thinking there was some value to “the tech”, something worth salvaging. Now, the viewpoint is completely different. I say chuck it all and start over.

My response to the author is: thank you, continue the process.

Eventually…eventually…everyone arrives at the same destination. The goal is to see Scientology and Hubbard for what they really are. At which point you will have nothing to do with them.

Statpush, I completely agree and have followed the same process of evolution. Leaving the church itself, still loyal to the idea of the tech and the idea of goodness of Scientology, seeing it for what it really is, and then having nothing to do with it. It’s important to be okay about it and this took me a while to do. I find from time to time the Scientology is still very much in my head and a part of how I think. This actually scares me at times because I have prided myself that I no longer think with it, and then I catch myself in the act.

Scientology should not be saved. There is nothing there but the installation of thought and behavior patterns designed for the purpose of control and obedience. People end up self-deluded. Whoever wants to do it, fine, that is up to them. But I say that Scientology is bad for people, certainly families. Scientology does not bring people together, it separates them from each other. Even when you’re a practicing Scientologist in the group because you are always being evaluated in terms of your contribution to the group, your Bridge progress, ethics level, your ‘theta’, what your kids or spouse is doing in relation to the Bridge, etc., etc. Scientology can also be bad, or even harmful for people who are more emotionally and psychologically sensitive and introspective in nature. I would tell anyone to stay away from it. There is so much life to live out there in the world. Life without Scientology in it.

GW: I may be in the “early stages of compression,” and be naive and ignorant. Maybe I’ll develop a less charitable attitude in the future. Who knows. That said, I agree with many of your points. Free discourse is always good. Thanks.

Terra Cognita, neither did I say you are in a certain way nor did I mean to say that. What I said the thinking of the essay was naive. The way you think and who you are are two tally different things. I am the same all my live, yet, please trust me, I have expressed many naive and silly thoughts same as in this essay. I live in my heart, not in my mind. So, I apologize if I sounded harsh it was not intended to judge you or make you less in any way.
I admire your courage to share your current thinking, although in my view that thinking can use more evolution.

Gerhard, I had a much different experience through most of my 35 years active and working in Scientology. I certainly do not feel I had become at any time “utterly delusional.” As a matter of fact, I DID have life changing wins that I still apply in my life to this day to make it better and more enjoyable. Yes, some of my realizations were absolutely tremendous, from MY point of view. I even still apply some of the admin stuff, did Non Existence with someone just yesterday on needs and wants. Have applied Affluence to my finances very successfully many times. Even parts of the first dynamic danger formula and yes, even some wins from applying the enemy formula. I notice drops in tone level almost immediately when I am with someone (as well as a raise in tone) I take what works for me and discard what doesn’t. Why should I invalidate anything that is true for me or that works for me?

Joe, what works for you works for you because you make it work. Yet Scientology is a way of thinking that occludes reality. There are no ‘conditions’ this is just a construct LRH thought up to structure our thinking in a certain way. As long as one is stuck in the faulty answers that LRH gave one is not looking for better ways.
And in almost every aspect I found there are better ways to deal with life than Scientology “tech” offered.
For that one has to look beyond Scientology think and as one does one will realize every day how one was duped and blinded and find new doors opening.
“Why should I invalidate anything that is true for me or that works for me?”
Maybe Václav Havel has the answer for it when he said:
“Keep the company of those who seek the truth- run from those who have found it”

Thanks for the post T.I.Many on the forum myself included enjoyed it.keep writing.
10 years ago I thought the same thoughts.
With each passing year I can think of less things that have to be preserved. You realize that you were mocking it all up when you were not mocking it up until they started asking you in session to mock it up.
Then they start to ask you to mock up past lives which you never did before. Then after you pay 350,000 OT 8 the truth is revealed that you were just mocking it all up with help from your space cooties.
Then Xenu stuff OT 3, 5, 7 will make you someone who can make the astray stand up without hands.
After reading the reactions on this post very few things to preserve were suggested which is quite telling.
Under all the mounds of titanium plated shit if there is a pony it would maybe be: Data series, ser fac technology, the L’s are kinda cute, creative processing (unfortunately cancelled) admin scale.
If however the PJ Barnum University ever offers a course in scamology things would be different.

Regading the “Clear Cognition” – As usual there are contradictions. When I “went Dianetic Clear” back in 1982 I had the realization that all my AESPs hinged on initial considerations, in other words, what I thought about it. Whether that translates to “I mocked it up” who knows.

A squirrel group called Avatar just ran considerations rather than chains of engrams.

I still don’t know if “Dianetic Clear” is the same thing as “Regular Clear” which was dianetics, grades, power, clear on the grade chart back then – Laughter!

It was a good experiential reality that I need not be affected by my past, but still, what a mind twister!

Joel, I will challenge you as I have a number of friends of mine on the “all plagiarized” charge: Find ANY earlier writings or therapy which had specific developed processes, run under specific rules (like the Auditor’s Code) AND demanded that the therapist run each action (or therapy session) to an end result of personal realization and “patient” very happy about the result. This is actually the MOST important part of applied Scientology as developed by LRH (the auditing) and I think wholly original.

You know, it took me almost 30 years!!! to fully realize that LRH was full of shit in EVERYTHING he did and wrote about; 30 years!!! I used to think – up to VERY recently – that there was real value in many parts of Scientology, worth being salvaged. I used to think that the subject was reformable, and that “the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water”.

I had realized on the cultic aspects of Scn several years ago, and attempted to wake others up to these aspects by many posts and comments in the now gone BIC blog. I attempted to use a different approach to the ones that had been used by others before, which were mostly fixations on the extremes; either “Scn was too perfect”, or “Scn was just totally unworkable and pure evil”.

It was my belief that either one of those extremes was misguided, and lacked real wisdom and balance. And thus, I tried to balance things out, by communicating about each aspect; the good ones and the bad ones, about Scn, in ways where everything was evaluated against everything else by using sensible, unbiased, and fair arguments (or so I thought).

This approach seemed to work by the amount of feedback that I got in those days. I was heavily criticizing the things I believed were worthy of criticism, and I was validating him for the things that I felt that he was worthy of praise. That balance, was apparently well received by many, at the time.

I had learned and intensely applied Scn to others’ and to my own life with reasonable good results (or so I thought, back then), and saw no reason why Scn couldn’t be reformed, and its “good” parts salvaged . But a LOT of research into many other philosophies (Non-dualism, Buddhism, etc, etc) and healing systems (Energy Medicine, Emotional Freedom Tapping techniques [EFT Tapping], Chakra Balancing healing systems, hypnosis and self-hypnosis, systems based on the Law of Attraction [which hundreds exist, like Napoleon Hill’s works], etc, etc), made me realize how actually primitive was Scn when compared to many of those healing systems/philosophies.

We had been led to believe – and VERY cleverly so – that Scn was actually an “advance” over all those philosophies/healing systems, when what it REALLY was, is a bad and altered copy-paste of already existing good methods of healing, and workable philosophical principles (BUT mixed with bad, false, and suppressive ideas). Almost EVERYTHING advertised as a “breakthrough” in Scn was either already a discovered practice/knowledge which was copied EXACTLY as originally used (but mixed with bad ideas/practices), or LRH modified it a little bit, and made some “cosmetic” changes to it. And what doesn’t fit into those two categories, is knowledge of no real value to amount to anything, and I’ll give a few examples :

1. The “Tone Scale” and “Chart of Human Evaluation”. This scale (even though not as detailed; whose details are not useful, anyway) was already known and used by psychologists and psychiatrists for almost a century before LRH’s “discovery” of it. Sigmund Freud understood them (the tone levels), as well as others before him (Even Charles Darwin did, and wrote about it). LRH was no “pioneer” on this field AT ALL.

It was a well and understood fact, that people behave differently depending on the emotion that they are exhibiting, specially their chronic emotional state. The famous (or infamous) 1.1 was frequently called by other names, and people in general knew what to expect of them; treachery, gossip, and a stab in the back [ Homosexuality WAS NOT part of that understanding, of course, but LRH added it to it]. I mean, I knew this as a young adolescent. Same with people in anger, fear, sadness (grief),or apathy; the most basic emotions, from which all others can be derived, but I’ve found that it lack any real practical purpose to do so.

So far, I have never needed to use the “Full Tone” scale to either auditing others, or Solo-auditing. Neither have I needed it for social interaction. I thought I did, but I recently discovered that I have actually never used it.

2. The “Ethics Conditions and their Formulas”. There are several errors in the conditions. “Doubt” is VERY badly articulated, and many individuals frequently got “Hung up at Doubt” because of this. “Treason” and “Enemy” doesn’t really have a “Method” to it. It does not say how one “Knows that one is”, or how one finds “Who we really are”. These “formulas” are VERY general and subjective. Many like me, who felt this way (and who had an extensive training at scientific methodologies and logical thinking), were told to just “find your M/Us”, and shut the fuck up.

I mean, it can take someone even years!!! to find out who he really is; and to realize that one is not really wearing a hat that one should be wearing (what the Treason formula is ALL about), can take some people days, weeks, months, or even years, as well. Yet, these “formulas” lack any REAL method to it. Is is just me, or isn’t this quite obvious?

“Liability” is too general, and can end up in abuses and violations of Human Rights. I mean “Decide who your friends really are”? How? Many steps are missing that should come BEFORE this step, like “friends” based on which/whose criteria? “Deliver an effective blow to the ‘enemies’ of the group”? What the hell is that? That’s sort of cleverly slanted towards protecting Scn, coming from a mind (LRH’s) that saw an “enemy” in ANYONE who opposed and/or disagreed with him. It is (“Liability”) the formula that a cult leader would use to keep the cult members in check, and nothing more. Realize that “Forgiveness” is taken out of the equation; only amends take you out of it. Forgiveness can be a VERY powerful tool to change “bad” behavior, depending on the magnitude of the act, of course, as amends are frequently needed, but it is a PERSONAL thing to heal our souls, and not a group thing.

“Normal Operation” is not that bad, neither “Emergency” is, but please realize, that those actions called for in the formula are basically intuitive and done by most people regardless of their knowledge of Scn. Every failing business thinks in heavily promoting almost as an instinctive response to the situation.

“Affluence” brings in just TOO much psychological pressure on the individual; “If you violate it, you’ll crush down heavily, and it’ll be hard to climb up again, blah, blah, blah”. Why this pressure? Rest assure, that it was only to “keep stats up”, not for the sake of a “Cleared Planet”, but ONLY to keep money coming in.

So, these “survival” formulas, are nothing but a confused mess, not worth salvaging. Too much wrong with them, regardless of the good parts that some of them do have. It gives life a mechanical outlook, and a sense that we must ALWAYS attempt to “Expand” as the “only” safe operating state. Relaxation, and just enjoying life, got lost in the way. It was always a “race for survival” now. Thanks, but no thanks; use them as you wish, but count me out.

3. “Training Routines” (TRs). OT TR0 already existed (in a modified version) as a “Meditation technique” as old as civilization itself. Buddha allegedly used it to find enlightenment. One just sit still, put our attention on the breath, and do nothing and think nothing. A similar technique just place its attention on “nothingness”.

TRs 2-4 have existed in many professional development programs that teaches communication skills to others. The importance of really listening to others as a healing tool is VERY ancient. Letting others know that we have listened to them (TR2), is an old technique as well, one that I used well BEFORE Scn.

And a REAL therapy session should not be that restricted in the flow of communication. Research by yourselves the great success of EFT Tapping, where the communication is free and flowing, and its results are way, way beyond Scn. I always felt SO restricted as an auditor, particularly in the TR4, the handling of originations. Oddly enough, LRH violated his own TRs left and right, in his own sessions as an auditor. I mean, just listen to any LRH demonstration auditing lectures; he SURE talks a lot!!! Any Qual officer would flunk him on the spot. Yet, he was capable of bringing about far greater results than any auditor I know. Why? Because his communication was not so damn restricted. He was not following his own rules. Any VIIIners know this.

TRs are very faulty in many aspects. They definitively lack the “value” that so many have attributed to them. They do have value and good uses, but they need modifications and changes, and are worthless if taught in their present form.

4. “Dianetics auditing and how past trauma affects the present”. This is old story; much, much older than psychoanalysis and even than psychology itself. And if anyone doubts the effect of past trauma upon our present life, as I’ve seen a few posters here assert, go tell that to a war veteran; he’ll laugh in your face.

DNs have good uses, but NED was no improvement at all. Plain “old” Bk one can handle most traumas, specially those from abuses and war. In old DMSMH DNs, the auditor uses his wits to recognize charged phrases and thoughts, and make the PC repeat them to take charge off them (it is called “Rolling a Phrase”). 80% of my own success with BK-1 (10,000 + hours) was due to just that. Those phrases and thoughts are what usually charge those incidents up, and are in fact, postulates and decisions the person made at the time. This bs of taking THE (as if only “One” existed, and not MANY) “postulate off” is just that; bullshit. A person usually makes dozens of postulates per each charged incident. Those are spoken or only thought of. And many phrases spoken by the patient and other characters in the incident are what charge them so much. And EACH one must be taken up and handled.

“You are no good”, “You fucked up”, “I hate you”, “Get out of here”, “You never do anything right”, and blah, blah, blah. And what you thought of during the incident, is frequently the KEY to discharge it, and render it ineffective. But no, LRH knew best, and took it all away with his NED “refinements”.

“Emotional Freedom techniques” (EFT tapping) renders DNs totally obsolete . Do not take my word for it. Just test it. It can be self-taught and applied by yourselves. But learn it from its original founder Gary Craig. EFT is at least 5x faster and workable than DNs is, as silly as it might look to you (as it did to me) at first sight. It is THE most tested/researched method of healing so far.

5. “The Scientology Grades”. Hundreds of hours (150-200 hours) to not achieve those EPs as advertised in LRH’s writings. I have yet to find ANY Scientologists who manifest in life, FOR REAL, any of those EPs (including myself, of course). “No longer have problems”? Give me a fucking break here. Scientologists tends to be riddled with problems, SPECIALLY “OTs”.

I PERSONALLY know many of them, and I know how fucked up they are, believe me. I know that not all “OTs” are like that, of course. Many are doing just fine in life. But I bet you that they were ALREADY very smart and able individuals BEFORE Scn. Scn might have helped them to remove some blocks they encountered, but they did the rest with their own already developed (or born with) abilities. I know quite a few OTs fitting into this category.

So hundreds of hours (in the Scn Grades) to achieve a result that can EASILY be achieved with a LOT less hours, and a LOT cheaper (in case you used a practitioner’s help, because you can self-apply it) with EFT Tapping or even some form of noninvasive self-hypnosis.

And about the “OT levels”, I think that enough have been said about them; no need to expand here. They are WORTHLESS, and even dangerous to your mental health.

So what does that leave us with, as regards to the “good” parts of Scn that are worth salvaging, dear Terra Cognita ? It has NONE whatsoever to amount to anything, and be worth the effort of anyone. Why waste our time with something that has SO MANY wrong things with it, and risk exposing others to its harmful parts? I mean, is that even ethical?

LRH was a crazy bipolar bastard that damaged so, so, so many lives, that studying anything from him, is like supporting his criminal and abusive actions. It is validating plagiarism, cultism, violation of Human Rights, damaged lives, destroyed families, betrayed trust, blatant lies, failed purposes (“Clear” and “OT”), antagonism towards Freedom of Thought and power of choice over data, lack of Free will and real self-determinism, the attacking of those who dissent, etc, etc.

Is it that what we really want ? Are we prepared to forgive for the sake of a few isolated instances of good results here and there? Are we going to forget that easily about all those tears that so many shed over their lost family members through disconnection? If any of you do, I can understand, as I was willing to do all that just up to very recently, but not anymore. It is up to you and your own consciousness what each one of you do for and with Scn. I already made my decision; Scn no more. I only want its TOTAL eradication now, even from just footnotes at some old and forgotten history book.

To do otherwise, at least from my perspective, would be a betrayal of all those victims whose lives got destroyed by Scn, and I for one, won’t have that on my conscience. No sir, I won’t anymore. I spit in LRH’s grave. I will forgive him when he returns to take responsibility for all the mess he left behind including abandoning his OWN family. When he DOES, he’ll have my forgiveness, but not before that. I do not hate him in any way, shape or form; I don’t waste my time with petty human emotions. But forgiveness, is something EARNED, and not just given away. And LRH is VERY far from having earned it. Perhaps a full lifetime of good actions would make him worthy of it.

Gee, I have done a LOT less damage than him in my life, and I feel totally unworthy of it now; why should I grant it to him? There is only ONE route to redemption; acceptance of past authorship of each and every bad deed one has ever committed in life, amending each and every bad act one committed to the best of our abilities and resources, and the wisdom to live an ethical life w/out any selfishness. It can be a very gruesome route out, but a very worthwhile one. I would not have it any other way. That’s REAL freedom, and I know of no other one. And there is ONLY one person in the whole world that is capable of giving you that freedom : YOURSELF.

I also think that a much longer treatise describing the process that brought you to these conclusions would be very well received and of great benefit to many. The insight of your personal journey could help put more feet on the path. Just my humble opinion.

Thanks Justmeteehee, that’s a great suggestion. I am thinking on writing a book, and have been since quite some time ago. It’ll be titled, “Scientology : Truth Revealed”. I am just waiting to become professional in the handling of my English. I am an Hispanic person, and I am working my way to become fully proficient in it.

Such book is intended to gradiently get into the hearts of those trapped under the undue influence of authoritarianism, and help them to see the light of Freedom of Thought shinning on their faces. Thanks for your support.

You are most welcome, Justmeteehee, and thank YOU for your kind words. Yes, it was a very long path to self-revelation indeed! W/out having been a strict LRH follower, and then having completely freed myself of Scn, I wouldn’t have accumulated the wisdom about life that I feel that I now possess. So it was a life lesson of great value. I have no regrets at all.

I have followed your posts over the years Peter and have traveled a similar path with regards to your viewpoint on LRH and $cn. It is a twisting path out of the labyrinth of cult thinking and actions and despite the train wrecks that lurk, it is very rewarding and worth doing. Thanks for the post.
Coop

You are most welcome, and thanks for your support, Newcomer. I fully agree with you; it is VERY rewarding and worth doing, to follow the path that leads out of the labyrinth. Thanks for sharing your views.

Peter, seeing your thoughts about the subject evolve from your early posts on the South African blog to now has been an incredible experience. You fought like heck to try to resolve the outpoints, and even tried to engage people familiar with the Tech to resolve them. What the Millstone Two people did to you in that process was unforgivable. I am very glad that you came to the conclusions that you did, not only because I agree with you, but because I didn’t want you to end up like poor Ken Ogger, who drove himself to suicide trying to apply Hubbard’s methods to resolve those outpoints. No one needs to repeat the descent into paranoia and true mental illness that Ogger did.

You once wondered here if I was your friend. The answer is, yes, I am. And as someone who believes the Tech should be destroyed, I’m glad to have you as a friend and ally in this effort. It’s posts like yours that can break through the walls of “certainty” that disciples of the Tech have, and make them think critically. Not everyone can have the sheer force of will that Chris Shelton has. Sometimes you need a little push.

Thanks for your kind and encouraging words, dear Espiando. I am happy to be your friend as well, thank you.

Yeah, I understand about dear Ken; he was a kind man, and a very smart individual. But he got fixated into LRH’s methods of “research” as you said, which took his life at the end. A friend of mine shared with Ken in those last weeks of his, and told me the full story.Very sad indeed. Thanks for your concern.

As for MS2, I am kind of glad that it happened, as it was really an eye-opener event that showed me what KSW fundamentalist type of Scientologists are all about; cultism and treason against Human Rights. It was quite enturbulative at the beginning, but I tend to learn a lot from my experiences, and seek out of them, the life lessons to be understood.

While they became smaller in numbers and influence as time went by, I grew in spiritual strength and emotional support from others. So it was a win-win situation for me.

Recently I asked you, in the comments section of a certain posting of Mike’s blog, to let me know how I could get hold of you one-on-one, and you graciously gave me your email address that I could use to write to you.

Unfortunately, so far, I have not had the time to write, but worse, I never did save your email address.

I know that if I searched through every posting of Mike Rinder’s blog for the last three months, I could find you email address that you gave me, but if you would be so kind as to give it to me one more time here, I promise that I will save the address so that when I am ready to write to you, I will still have the address. Thanks again for your consideration.

I just wanted to clarify for my friends who are lovers of the Tech (LRH’s Tech), that I do not mind of any of you practicing Scn or any other system of belief/application for that matter. It isn’t as if I am going to suppress now your freedom of belief, or shun you off. I am really sorry if any of you got that impression from my ealier posts/comments. We can still discuss the pros and cons of Scn in a friendly debate, which can even gets emotionally heated, but we can always agree to disagree on anything, and that’s all right too, you know.

I am not the CofS, and have never been of the style of being authoritarian in my dealings with others neither invalidative. So please do not feel that you have lost a terminal with whom you could exchange comms about Scn/LRH, because somehow I had now become hostile to the subject. I assure you, this is not the case. I won’t be shunning you off in any way, shape or form for your beliefs; how could I ?

If you have any questions as regards to anything regarding LRH/Scn, or anything (wins, cogs, etc) that you want to share with me, please do so. I would put my own beliefs aside to hear you out, and to help you out within your chosen reality.

What I write here as a duty that I feel I must perform for the sake of the protection of the freedom and sanity of others, in no way is in conflict with my friendship with you, just because you feel different about LRH and/or Scn. Nothing has changed from this end of the communication line. If at your end something did changed, then I can understand and grant beingness to it as well. But I am here, and will always be for any of you with totally open arms; ok buddies ?

“Reject those ideas which don’t make sense, and retain those that do” All power to you for that advice, Terra. The answer to the question of what makes sense, or what is useful, probably won’t be the same for everyone.

There have already been some pretty impressive people, over the last five decades or more, who blazed their own trails after learning what they could from scientology. I look forward to many more making this journey of discovery. Someday we might meet up on the other side and compare notes, even arrive at a consensus, but I think that will need to be a loose consensus with plenty of room for maverick freethinkers.

“For me, the real basics were those concepts to which I was exposed when I was first introduced to Scientology: The ARC triangle” The problem I have with the arc triangle “law” is it is easily disproved. You can be really be mad with someone them, but what they did was really real; you don’t want to speak with them, you don’t like what they did, and though you understand it, you don’t want to believe it ( like the spouse you just found out was cheating on you) – so the corners are not moving in unison – they are going in opposite directions. That law is only a theory, and not all that good of one.

But hey, since reality is “what you believe”, then you are free to believe it’s a law.

That’s my point – You both agree the spouse cheated, and yes, it’s real, but your affinity is in the toilet, you understand full well what he/she did, and your communication, well – do you have to ask in that situation? ( and I am not bringing all the hurt, jealousy etc that’s attendant to the betrayal. )

Obviously, his triangle analogy flat out doesn’t work. In my simple example it is obvious some corners are up and others down – thus his law is pseudo and /or junk science.
Mimsey

I don’t want to waste Mike’s time moderating a discussion of this, though I would like to continue the discussion, if you are so inclined. I frequently post on ESMB, so If you want to pursue this, PM me there, and I will start a thread. It is an interesting subject for discussion, and I am certain many other posters would like to participate. In addition to the exes there, there are some independents that post there, so it could be a lively discussion. Or it could fizzle. Thing go both ways there.

Great points Mimsey!
While I appreciate what Terra has written, I would like further explanation as to what ‘research’ entails.
Because I maintain there was no research. I believe LRH thought a lot. Sometimes under the influence of mind altering pharmaceuticals. That was his ‘research’.
So, do we throw away his research? Yes. For Pete’s sake, yes.

Good points. The theory of ARC=U is easily falsified if you look levels of non-understanding in science compared to those first 3 letters. Based on that humans should completely understand genetics, for instance.

Like much of El Con’s blathering, it looked good until the hood was lifted…

It’s comforting to know that experts exist in the field to give a ‘play by play’ breakdown of exactly what is taking place in a session. Much like sports commentators. Psychology ought to have this service done as well.( if they don’t already) Example: when the therapist tells you it was uncle so and so’s fault, you could run it by the expert to have it validated ( or not)and then you’d have it confirmed before you decided to continue to feel good about it or not. That way you could have any “win” verified and quantified by the outside expert as to it’s validity. This could apply to the myriad other experts unleashing their advice on their unsuspecting prey: for example relatives, nosey neighbors, stock brokers, or perhaps worst of all corporate office ‘team’ leaders. With the use of independant counciling ‘verifiers’ Independant scientologists in the field might see their ranks swell over night, much the same as Christianity became widely accepted shortly after Jesus died. Oh wait, no that was 400 some odd years later when an emperor’s wife converted him. Well never mind then.

May I suggest please an activity that might prove valuable to ex Scientologists who wish to sort out their experiences in the Scientology world and what is or what is not valuable to them? Take some sheets of paper and draw a line down the middle (just like worksheets!). Column 1 and column 2. In column 1, just list out IN YOUR EXPERIENCE what you found valuable, useful or true in Scientology. (examples, ARC Triangle the Tone Scale, TR 2, any particular datum like “any game is better than no game”, the Non-Existence Formula, etc etc etc). This list could go on for many many pages and take hours to do. In column 2, list those things you found destructive in Scientology or simply NOT true (examples, the absoluteness of attest cycles, the Liability formula, disconnection, having to pay TONS for clearing words in session, the end of Keeping Scientology Working ,the idea that LRH is never wrong, the RPF, etc etc). While someone could complete column 1 before going on to column 2, I would suggest doing them at the same time as thoughts pop up

I have done just so, Joe, and the result is that whatever of “value” remaining in Scn is so little, and so mixed with half-truths, lies, authoritarianism, and general harmfulness; that why even bother to study/apply Scn; and more so when there are many systems in existence that are faster and better than Scn in producing real and lasting results? Just saying, man.

I challenge any KSW out there to choose ramdom cases (of people who never heard of Scn); let’s say 2 cases for each group. To one group A you apply 10-15 hours of Scn. To group B I’ll apply a do-it-yourself theraphy under my supervision. And then let’s publish the results. I challenge any KSW Scientologist to this test with me. We can even make a public bet, with a chosen jury agreed by both sides. And I promise you, that I’ll beat Scn everytime in 1/3 of the time with better results. Let’s not just argument over this; let’s actually DO IT. It will be TOTALLY free for the patients, of course. Any volunteer auditor? You can even be a class XII; it is all the same for me.

Joe, the ARC triangle, the tone scale, formulas to follow when you’re worried about the state of your affairs, all seem harmless enough. (I made up my own divine trinity of understanding which is as good as ARC: Perception, Recognition, Interaction. PRI. You too can make up your own triangle of understanding!)

My point is to suggest when making that list of things deemed valuable from Hubbardarianism against those deemed not valuable to you, is to also state HOW those items are valuable. Otherwise I think your suggested exercise is a good one for bringing clarity to a mind laden with unexamined assumptions.

As a side note, “any game is better than no game” is a questionable datum from which to draw guidance in my opinion. It suggests doing anything is better than doing nothing. Not always sound advice (“first do no harm”). Also, who says you have to play a game? Playing a game is what you do to attain something you want, the “higher purpose”. If you have what you want there’s no reason to play a game nor is there a reason not to.

Here’s a datum endorsed by the great sages throughout history: “You are what you want”. Hubbard didn’t know that and consequently sent multitudes of people off on a wild goose chase into this imaginary endless black hole of horrors called, “wholetrack”. That might be an item you could put in the “not valuable” column.

Last time I was in the org, I got into a fight with a large German woman who was the sup. She didn’t think I clay demo’d very well and pushed my face into the clay. It was…..just so humiliating. I’ll never go back!

Hi OSD, Yes and putting the clay from the demos back into clear plastic bags at the end of course time @ Asho F was not fun and not easy because the only tools I had were my hands and even though they do well with clay getting it perfectly back in the bag per Ron was a make it go right moment! XO

Now I remember Dio! You are that completely insane person who posted before that only El Con, yourself, and couple others on the planet were “smart” enough to understand the “tech”. And THAT is why it never seemed to work.

And you’re not the only one! Many of my friends who have gone to Mars all say the trolleys are just brutal! But there’s one bar I really liked there called the Red Planet. Now they know how to pour a stiff drink!

Amazes me he could remember back trillions of years but couldn’t make going back a few hundred years workable so he could pick up all his buried treasure. Loved watching Hannah W talk about those “expeditions”.

What happens to the “tech” when it’s cut loose from its props? It falls into a heap. It can’t stand on its own as evidenced by the dismal success of the independent scientology market. Remove the lies and what do you have? Somebody answer that please.

Scientologists always talk about their “wins’ but what is a ‘win’? A ‘win’ is a momentary sense of elation yielding a momentary sense of optimism about the future. Both the elation and the optimism disappear over time. Fortunately the concept of the “stable gain” comes to the rescue. It is the belief in MENTAL MASS and the belief that every time you have a ‘win’ you get rid of some mental mass forever. You permanently ‘blow mass’.

So when that elation has long since gone you can comfort yourself with the belief that regardless how unexceptional you are, you have removed tons of mass from your eternity. And if you’re in a relatively good state of mind most of the time, that’s your ‘stable gain’. Scientologists, after so many years consider all that mass they reckon they’ve blown to be their life long spiritual progress. That’s why you can’t get a clear answer out of them about all the great things the ‘tech’ has done for them. In short there are no measurable or observable results collectively. Just fanciful notions. If fanciful notions put a smile on your face and a song in your heart then viva la fanciful notions!

110% correct rog. Also as noted, the “tech” has gone no where outside the CoS. The Indie movement as evidenced by their websites, pretty much collapsed by the end of 2014.

Scamology at it HIGHEST only numbered in the mid to high 5 figures in the USA. And that only for a few years in the 70’s and when counting people no longer doing services but not “officially” having left scamology.

rogerHornaday – Invalidating wins doesn’t work. “Win” is a broad and generalized word overused in scn. A win could be that my car looks nice after I just waxed it or that I had a startling life changing revelation. The same thing applies to “blowing charge/mass”. In the case of a “major stable win” in scio-speak, I agree that it should be able to be expressed in real life terms.

Richard, invalidating wins doesn’t work? That depends on the objective. If my objective is to elicit a response then invalidating wins apparently DOES work. What does it mean to “invalidate” a win? Does it mean to speak dismissively about it and cause the person who had it to doubt its value and become hurt or angry? Is that what it means?

What is the value of a win, anyway? It’s about feeling good isn’t it? If a win doesn’t feel good then it’s not a desired commodity. So it truth, wins are just a means to feeling good and feeling good is the important thing. Interestingly, in order to feel bad we must have a reason to feel bad (my win was invalidated!) but we don’t need a reason to feel good. Just remove my worries and I feel like a million bucks. Speak ill of my wins if you like, my happiness isn’t dependent on them.

rogerHornaday – You are using your own definition of a win. You say “A win is a momentary sense of elation . . . etc.” Also, “So in truth, wins are just a means of feeling good…etc.”
I don’t accept that limiting definition. It seems to say that nobody ever had a life changing experience or newly found insight in scn which they then called a win.
I personally audited a man through a lifelong deep seated trauma of being dumped off at an orphanage when he was a kid. I think he considered that a win.

Richard, I think the best thing a ‘life changing’ experience can do for somebody is to get a monkey off their back so they can get on with the business of enjoying their existence. Happiness is our default setting. We don’t need a reason to be happy. Unhappiness, however, always has a cause. I see ‘wins’ as little affirmations in hope that “someday I’ll be whole”. It’s a little bit sad when people make a lifestyle out of having them. When you feel that you are whole that’s liberation from the need to have “wins”. That’s how it looks to me anyway.

rogerHornaday – smile – I think we’ve found a meeting ground. For every monkey that jumps off there are many more ready to jump back on in scn.
Reflecting on positives might be beneficial for some people, but trying to hold onto or grasping for “wins” is not liberating as you say.
As a relative newcomer since watching Going Clear, I’ve appreciated your many cogent analyses of scn falsehoods. One was ripping apart Hubbard’s so called “Axioms” – laughter

Thank you, Richard. I don’t believe happiness is the result of acquiring abilities nor is it the result of fixing and improving yourself. It’s a matter of discovering the limitless satisfaction derived from simply being conscious. That’s real self-sufficiency. Serious problems sometimes need to be mitigated before that liberating discovery is possible, however.

What is one left with? A few fluffy self help formulas, some trance-inducing TRs, a painfully dull 1940s era abreaction therapy, a sci-fi narrative-influenced system of “past life” regression and a space cootie exorcism-themed form of guided imagery. An array of techniques the psychological sciences have since improved upon, discarded or generally consider abusive.

How are these techniques validated by practitioners? “Hidden persuaders” such as vague anecdotes, selective memory “successes” and reinforcement from colleagues and from Hubbard himself. The truth of this can be observed when one is removed from a scientology environment. Eventually these cognitive biases diminish.

There are, let’s face it, a hell of a lot more exs than there are scientologists.

Whether plagiarized, bricoleured, or self-created, Hubbard’s work did pull together many good concepts that are unfortunately intermingled with insanity and mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science.

And as your article rightly noted, KSW ensures an expiration date on Scientology. It freezes the good, the bad, and the ugly into one mess of unchangeable tech and fossilizes it.

Beyond the various good concepts in Scientology, I valued (and still do) the idea that there could be a systematic, rigorous, gradient approach to an individual learning about his/her mind. Non-Scientology counseling, by comparison, is relatively ad hoc, often focusing on just one major problem (a PTP or Present Time Problem in Scientologese), and possibly pulling at the roots and tendrils associated with that problem, but certainly not usually approaching the mind in a way that seeks to be comprehensive and holistic.

One great loss for me was realizing that an early dream would not be fulfilled. I had earnestly imagined what it would be like to actually remember, just as Buddha may have, every past life — not to have pictures flit across the mind, but to actually _remember_ being in those places as clearly as I can remember having seen a movie yesterday. That would have been awesome, had it been a true result of Scientology (and if it is even possible in the real world).

Scientology could have salvaged parts of itself if it wanted. But hamstrung by KSW and locked into treating Hubbard’s words as unalterable “scripture,” it closed the door, locked it, and threw away the key on any chance of becoming a true science in any sense of the word.

Hi FOTF2012, An interesting post,thank you.I too was entranced at past lives,not just retrieval as you wrote,but actually being at that point and remembering.Mission Into Time was that way for me.In auditing I did experience a total movie like sequence of a past life that I knew I was seeing through different eyes than my own.Pretty incredible,but I could not duplicate it again.Now I still have the memory, would have to research the location of where I was.Of course my auditor did not help by asking out of the blue was I recalling a parallel planet lifetime where it resembled Earth.That messed me up for quite sometime.I think I was definitely under hypnotic triggers which I was unaware of at the time,Sea Org being my life mission,I did not see the stress I came under until it was almost too late for me.So glad I got out.xo

Glad you made it Ann. I also experienced some fascinating things in auditing. Once for example we were tracing a “chain” back when the pyramids of Egypt sprang into view. “Huh,” I muttered. The e-meter must have “read” (reacted) for the auditor asked, “What was that?” I commented that I was seeing the pyramids of Egypt, but they were different — smooth-faced, shining in the sun.

Years later, I learned that the pyramids actually were faced with polished limestone at one point, and that surface was torn off to build parts of Cairo. While I do not recall having heard that fact before that auditing session, I have to ask myself what is more likely: (a) I remembered something from a past life? or (b) I had learned the fact earlier but had forgotten about learning it?

BTW, as a formerly trained auditor myself, I would have never asked a question like you got! (were you recalling a parallel planet lifetime where it resembled Earth). Very evaluative. And while Scientology tech can be very subtly “leading” in its questions, that one is remarkable — it could induce false memories, which I suspect happens a lot in auditing.

Nonetheless, that was another thing I valued in the Scientology system — the idea (and ideal) of an auditor never evaluating. However, that had its downside. Because the auditor was so restricted in what he/she could say, the PC (auditee) was cut off from much help and knowledge. Say a rape victim were being audited. It can be healing to know that the feelings are shared by other victims, the person is not alone, and there are support groups. None of that is possible in Scientology. In fact, a subtle or not-so-subtle stance in auditing would be why the victim “pulled in” (somehow caused to happen) the rape.

None of this sort of dialogue — reasoning things out, questioning, recognizing other sources of knowledge or support, pointing out pros and cons of parts of the “tech,” etc. — is possible within Scientology. Thus it is self-exiled to an intellectual Siberia from which it can never escape.

Hi FOTF2012,Thank you for a sensitive, beautiful post.The analogy to a rape victim resonated for me as that happened to me at 15.A great friend of my family who was 30.Three guesses as to which person was believed.It wasn’t me! XO

Today I had my first past-life regression therapy session, and I did it myself, following the instructions in a book written by a psychiatrist! It felt damned good afterward, I had some new realizations about my present life based on what I unearthed in the regression and I did it in the privacy of my own home and it was totally free (not counting the cost of the book, which was under $10). Fuck $ickentology!

“Through Time Into Healing: Discovering the Power of Regression Therapy to Erase Trauma and Transform Mind, Body, and Relationships,” by Brian L. Weiss, M.D. Not essential but very interesting is his earlier book, “Many Lives, Many Masters.”

Roughly two thirds of the worlds religions believe in reincarnation/past lives. Dianetic auditing brings up past life recall, take that as you will, and sticks people in the scn version of eternity. That “therapy” or something similar might be a substitute for people so inclined to investigate. For me, an ex scn-ist, it was certainly interesting, but provides no day to day benefit or certainty of an immortal future. I leave it as a maybe and don’t deny aesthetic possiblities.

That “therapy” meaning the “past-life regression therapy” mentioned above. Scn provided a comfortable certainty about immortality along with group agreement. That along with the euphoria produced by auditing sessions produces a strong grip on a scn-ist. I just mention this since never ins often puzzle over how people can be so duped. I’ve been there and done that. I truly believed I was getting “better” after each session and mortality was a “so what”.

I recently came across this article and am currently learning all about “hidden persuaders” and cognitive biases. Of particular note is how evidence seems to suggest that the more intelligent/rational one is the easier it is to succumb to them. http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html

I readily agree with Terra Cognita in this and his/her other articles. It’s so great seeing a mind awakening from the long slumber Scientology puts us all under and freeing itself from the shackles of restricted thought. These critical thoughts on Scientology, like the ones I wrote when I first came out as Galactic Patrol, are so liberating.

Reading your book, Chris, and love your no nonsense , light and clean style .
As far as saving anything scientology , the proof is in the pudding. In my experience it only produced egocentric , arrogant, unable to walk another’s shoes and supposedly always right and having solutions to everything in a judgmental way and I could say more but don’t want to sound redundant. I am sure I could find some good things but frankly it is too much of an effort , and it would only come from my own ability to perceive the fine traits of people behind the bullshit not because it was helped by the tech.
As Gerhrad said , all improvements I have seen were very temporary , didn’t carry very far or translated in concrete bettering of life or relationships.
“The one size fits all and everybody needs it even if they don’t know it” mindset is a disaster.
Everything else has pretty much been said on this thread.

In spite of LRH’s claims, specially in KSW, much of Scientology was developed/discovered by others.
Many of the early publications from the 1950’s such as Dianotes and The Aberree provide evidence of this (not to mention the first hand stories from old timers).
In modern parlance, it was crowd sourced.
But LRH started, contributed and drove the movement (for both good and bad reasons).

I’m a never in, but I am curious how you balance the tech with scientific reality. Thoughts do not have mass. This isn’t up for debate, it’s a proven fact. The earth isn’t a trillion billion years old. Fact. It goes on and on. So how do you separate the blatant scientific falsehoods from the tech and keep it?

You ask “How do you balance the tech with scientific reality? ” In Scientology the answer is simple: you don’t. Nothing in Scientology is to be placed under scientific analysis because all non Scientologist are wogs who will intentionally flub the experiments to embarrass Scientology since all the scientists are SPs anyway.

You have no proof of that neither; that’s the fact, Marildi. The fact is that we do not know ,as a VERIFIED fact, what makes the TA go up and down. This “resistense” could be in the form of any electrical interference caused by a disturbed mind. And an “electrical disturbance’ does not clasify as “mass”, unless you want to bring up Einstein’s energy v/s mass formula, which is not what LRH referred to, by the way. Any resistence to a flow can be caused by other energetic factors besides a “mass.

Hi, Peter. Yes, there are different scientific theories as to whether mass is condensed energy, but the meter – which measures physical phenomena – does prove, minimally, that thought creates a physical universe effect. This is why the meter is a useful tool in auditing or therapy – and that is the significant point in this particular field.

I agree that at least it proves – to a certain degree – that “thought creates a physical universe effect”, but not necessarily that thought carries mass with it. That was my whole point to begin with. See, if the statement “Thought carries mass with it” was true – even if a “tiny” mass as LRH asserted as a “fact” – that would mean that we have quatrillions of “tiny” masses in the “reactive mind” that added together would translate into QUITE a mass capable of weighting a considerable amount. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that a “reactive” thought has the mass of a cell (which is VERY TINY, 1/1012 grams). According to LRH we have lived for trillions of years, so it is accurate to assume – based on that premise – that a being should have reactive thoughts in the order of quatrillions, or even more. With just 50 quatrillions, that would mean 50 kilograms just in “mental mass” !!! Does that seem reasonable to you?

And energy does not equal mass as so many physicists wrongly interpret Einstein’s equation. The E = mc2 does not mean that energy = mass, but that there is an EQUIVALENT in energy for each unit of mass, which of course varies according to the element in question. It means that one can get energy from mass, by various methods, specially by nuclear fission. Because mass (particles that can be weighted) is “tied” together by various forces, obviously breaking it apart releases energy. That’s ALL it really means.

The electromagnetic energy are photons which has no rest mass at all. Were photons to have mass as such, and all the laws of physics would have to be changed. So LRH’s assertions about what makes the TA raise is not based on any known scientific explanation. He didn’t say that thought have “energy” (not mass), and that such an energy can be interfered with, or changed in its flow manifestation which could show some “resistance” that would show in a meter. No, he said “Thought has mass”. He took empirical observations of specific needle manifestations to mental phenomena, and instead of just describing such observations, went ahead and “theorized’ about it all playing the “scientist”. He should have stayed at the description of phenomena stage.

So all we know is that the e-meter react to “something” which we are not certain what it is. And that should have been investigated further by controlled experiments which were never carried our as he “knew best”, as always.

Using LRH’s definitions isn’t making it any better for you in this argument, sweetie. As long as you use LRH as your “back-up”, you won’t be able to properly evaluate this argument from a logical science-based approach, and you are WAY smarter than LRH; way smarter.

In the first place, we were not talking about “charge”, we were talking about “mass”. So we should stay focused on the SAME subject here, and take one aspect at a time, w/out jumping to another before tackling it properly.

In the 2nd place, as far as I know energy can’t neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be transfered from system to system, or used to perform work. If energy is “potential”, but that potential is not due to the relation between position and gravity – as in the case of “mental charge” – then it means that it will always be there existing unless used (made to flow, or transfer from a system to another). To “blow charge”, it means that energy needs to flow out, and this outflow might be what the e-meter registers. However, the mechanics of this is not totally understood, nor has been properly researched by anyone I know of.

But “mass” is not equal to “energy”, Marildi, and LRH ALSO said in his e-meter books, that a “mass moves in, when the PC thinks about a ‘charged’ incident”, and attributed the raising TA to it, as a “mass” offering “resistance” to the passage of current. You can’t change “stored energy” (“charge”) into a “mass” just like that. If we could, hunger would be history in this planet!!!, just like in Star Trek.

So your arguments from “Understanding the E-meter” solves/explain nothing at all, and is not even sequitur with what we were originally debating about; the subject of “mental mass”. You can’t just have a “mass” hidden somwhere in the “mind”, and not account for it, because the subject is not “reestimulated”. It does not work that way, sorry. If thoughts (reactive thoughts) contain “mass”, then it is always there, which means that we would have quadrillions of mental pictures that has weight. This defies logic.

The ONLY alternative “explanation” is to assume that Thought can create and/or destroy mass as will, and that it operates beyond the known laws of physics. Are you prepared to make such an assertion ?

“Using LRH’s definitions isn’t making it any better for you in this argument, sweetie. As long as you use LRH as your ‘back-up’, you won’t be able to properly evaluate this argument from a logical science-based approach”

My dear Peter, Socrates said, “Define your terms.” And IMO, if we are going to talk about LRH’s ideas regarding charge, for instance, we should know how he is using the word,

Posters question and criticize LRH for basically not being consistent in his theories, and then when I quote him in an attempt to fill in their missing data and connect the dots, they say I’m appealing to authority or using LRH as my “backup” – or they make some other change in the line of thought and discussion.

“In the first place, we were not talking about ‘charge’, we were talking about ‘mass’. ”

How does mass relates to charge, in your view? I read that neutrinos, for example, formerly thought to be massless, have recently been found to have mass after all.

“The ONLY alternative ‘explanation’ is to assume that Thought can create and/or destroy mass [at] will, and that it operates beyond the known laws of physics. Are you prepared to make such an assertion?”

LRH asserted in his model of the mind that Thought (theta) can both create and destroy (“as-is”) energy and mass. And it does seem to me to be true – as in the simple example of healers creating energy that can be felt as heat coming from their hands.

Regarding how I think that mass is related to “charge”, I don’t think they are at all. For me, “charge” is some kind of “energy disruption”, not a manifestation of “mass”. That has been my whole point all along.

See, if we take the statement, “Thought has mass” as true, it would defy not only all known physics laws, but even common sense as well. You can’t just have a “mass” parked somewhere in the mind, and not account for it until the picture containing it is “retrieved”, as you discussed with Roger in so many words. Or to think (which I am not saying you necessarily did) that once the memory is retrieved, that the individual himself create this “mass” then.

From a science standpoint, that’s not based on any one known law, and from a common sense standpoint, it is very impractical. You do not need any mass to have a resistance to any flow of energy, be it electrical energy or any other form of electromagnetic energy. You only need a disruption of some kind which affect the energy field, and it’ll respond and register on a meter such as an skin galvanometer. We need not any “mass” for it.

LRH might have gotten it right (but we won’t know for sure after we ACTUALLY experiment on it) in his explanation of memory retrieval activating these disruptions, even though he didn’t say it in those words, but meaning basically the same. But then he came with this bs about “Thought have mass” to explain TA movement; an inconsistency with his other assertions, and a poor knowledge of electrical phenomena. “The TA and needle seems to register some kind of energy disruption of the body’s energy field” would have been more scientific and less self-righteous. Then he would have stayed in the subject of empirical obsevations of observable phenomena instead of attempting to theorize so much about structure, when function was what he was allegedly studying.

The problem with LRH is that he was just TOO prone to theorize about structure when all he had was the accumulation of empirical data, most of which was anecdotal evidence. Should he had stayed at the subject of function more, and less on structure, may be some things from Scn would be worth salvaging. But EVERYTHING must be started from zero, IMHO, as all we have is questionable, not at all proved information in most of what he did, even if this wasn’t the case at some things here and there.

As regards to Thought being capable of influencing matter, that’s my belief as well, though I have not means right now to prove it to others. But I have seen enough changes in myself and others, that does not seems to have any other possible explanation, other than thought controlled/made dissapear, different energy disruptions.

“As I indicated to another poster (Mimsey), I can’t get into long discussions right now, but I’m glad you posted this reply. Because I think we all may have complicated the subject of mental mass.”

No Marildi, not “we but YOU! I understand the subject just fine having learned in an ACTUAL engineering class room with well known professors, and with the correct math and experimentation (the Labs) behind it. Also from ACTUAL electromagnetics texts as opposed to isolated websites with general references. I didn’t learn this from con men want-to-be scientists.

“LRH simply said that it was condensed energy and that it had to do with density – that’s all. This is actually parallel to condensed energy in the physical universe being what comprises matter.”

I suggest you enroll in a real physics course before making such assertions and blindly believing everything LRH said.

“As for the meter, the tone arm “registers density of mass (ridges, pictures, machines, circuits) in the mind of the preclear.” (UEM)

More and more abstractions and gibberish from el con “scientist”, I am afraid. “Energy density” being “machines” and “circuits” ? This is what energy density ACTUALLY is :

LRH’s definition is just gibberish. But I would never expect you to understand and/or accept that. As I have told you before, debating with you about Scn/LRH is a very tiring and frustrating endeavor. You find no possibly truth in no counter argument brought about by others actually trained in the sciences, and this is something I’ve seen you doing time and time again at different blogs. Most posters just give up out of frustration. You never seems to get the central point. So I won’t be engaging you in public arguments again. You do not have to agree with anyone, you know. But disagreeing with EVERYTHING and not acknowledging actual VALID points brougt about as your normal operating basis when someone is bringing up valid points against something from Scn/LRH? Now, that’s being fixated. I think that I’ll put you in the same category of those MS2 people. That way I will know better than to engage in dead-end debates with you.

“Also as you probably know, some people can perceive mental mass – their own or that of others. This could be another subje ct of experimentation for you, or whomever.”

No, I do not “Know” that others can perceive any “Mental mass”, Marildi; I KNOW THEY say that they do, two DIFFERENT things. Intuitive healers frequently talk of being able to perceive DISRUPTIONS in the body’s energy field, which they call, “The Aura”. They also talk about being able to perceive “entities” which they frequently describe as “A presence” or as an energetic manifeatation of some kind. Now, SCIENTOLOGISTS with their NOTs bullshit, and crazy, delusional CBR, are the ones claiming to perceive “mental mass”. I myself, does not perceice any “mass” as such; I perceive fluctuations and changes in my own energy field, not a silly “mental mass”.

I assume that you’ll write back as you always like to have the last word at ANYTHING. Just understand that I won’t reply to it. It is no fun replying to you as much as I try granting you beingness.

ALL my point was – which IS a valid one, you know – that ALL we knew for certain, is that the e-meter seems to react to SOMETHING, which we are not YET sure what it is. That we can safely assume that it react to thought or to what thought causes in the body’s energy field. EVERYTHING else are just weak theories, conjectures, and ASSUMPTIONS from LRH and from you. But as I said before, I do not expect you to be able to understand this as you are mostly “LRH right”.

TC: “No Marildi, not ‘we’ but YOU! I understand the subject just fine having learned in an ACTUAL engineering class room with well known professors, and with the correct math and experimentation (the Labs) behind it.”

The subject we were talking about was LRH”s model of MENTAL mass, and I highly doubt any soch model was what you studied in an engineering class or in “ACTUAL electromagnetics texts,” to quote you again.

That was my whole point about us complicating the subject: We were mixing it with physics laws, whereas per LRH’s theory “theta is thought; an energy of its own universe analogous to energy in the physical universe but only occasionally paralleling electromagnetic-gravitic laws.”

Mike, a Wheatstone bridge is defined as “a simple circuit for measuring an unknown RESISTANCE by connecting it so as to form a quadrilateral with three known resistances and applying a voltage between a pair of opposite corners.”

As I wrote, if it isn’t mental mass creating the resistance, what is it?

To explain it to you would require that you be conversant with vector calculus, the principle of dielectrics, the electropotential of the human body, Ohm’s Law, and other things. Would you like me to? I’m sure I could fish out my old electromagnetics textbooks from thirty years ago. And unlike L. Fraud, I took electromagnetics, so I do know more than him.

The least verbose method is to use equations, which this blog isn’t equipped for. To put it as simply as I can without using vector calculus and integration over surfaces: the neurons in your body work through a continual flow of charged particles between the outside and inside of your neurons. Your hands are loaded with neurons; otherwise, they wouldn’t work. The flow of charged particles sets up an electric field which has an inherent resistance due to the structure of your body, which is mostly composed of an electrically polar molecule that you know as “water”. These changes in the electric field of your body are picked up on by the wheatstone bridge that you are holding, making the bridge react.

That’s as simple as I can get without the use of high-level math.

And for you to cite Fallacy of Proof By Verbosity is both hypocrisy in the extreme and lulz in the extreme, since you continually engage in Fallacy of Proof By Appeal To Authority, where the authority is L. Fraud.

Marildi, another hilarious fact to consider. Those solo cans where they are held in one hand. The tiny current of electricity that the emeter puts out of one can and picks up on the other can, you know that it takes the path of LEAST resistance and what that means? LOL

Electrodermal activity (EDA) is altered by external perceptions and mental imagery. It is a measurement of the momentary conductivity of the skin. The theory behind it is supported by known facts. As it stands, you criticize that theory on the basis of your non-understanding of those facts (“that can’t be true because I don’t see how it could be”) which is a logical fallacy.

If you want to argue in favor of the “mental mass” hypothesis then l invite you to do so but first define what you mean by the word, “mass”. Then explain the difference, if any, between “mental” mass and the mass referred to in the Law of Conservation which states mass cannot be created nor destroyed. I am intrigued to hear your definitions and your theory about how “mental mass” affects the tone arm. I hope you won’t disappoint me by remaining silent or by telling me something evasive.

“Then explain the difference, if any, between ‘mental’ mass and the mass referred to in the Law of Conservation which states mass cannot be created nor destroyed. I am intrigued to hear your definitions and your theory about how ‘mental mass’ affects the tone arm.”

Hi, Roger. My theory is that the Law of Conservation of Energy does indeed apply and that mental charge or mass is dispersed in auditing. Also, see my reply above to Thetaclear.

“Thought creates a physical universe effect” What is a ‘physical universe effect’?

Your mental mass theory begs a lot of questions. Let me see if I understand it, okay? Thoughts have mass. The mass interferes with the electric current running through the body. When the mass is dispersed the electric current flows with less resistance.

I have questions. Since you can’t separate an object from its mass because the object is composed of mass, then you can’t separate a thought from its mass. That would mean that thoughts exist in the physical body where they interfere with the electric current. Do our thoughts exist in the body? Where in the body?

When the mass is dispersed, where does it go? Scientology OT’s have presumably dispersed lots of mass over the years yet they have the same measure of skin resistance as regular folk. Does that mean they have the same amount of mental mass? I thought it had been dispersed.

———————-
“An electrical field exists at a distance from, or within, the body of the preclear. The tiny electrical flow from the E-Meter, acting as a carrier wave, which is passed through the body of the preclear, is influenced by electrical shifts and disturbances which occur in this ‘field’.

“The preclear is also surrounded by such things as masses, pictures and ridges and an entire record of the past which we call a time track.”
———————–

You also wrote:

“When the mass is dispersed, where does it go? Scientology OT’s have presumably dispersed lots of mass over the years yet they have the same measure of skin resistance as regular folk. Does that mean they have the same amount of mental mass? I thought it had been dispersed.”

Here’s another quote for you from UEM:

———————-
“These [pictures] are only partly permanently created. Other moments of the past become re-created only when the thetan’ s intention is directed to them, on which these parts spontaneously appear, the thetan not voluntarily creating them.

“This forms the time track. Some parts of it, then, are ‘permanently’ in a state of creation and THE MAJORITY OF IT BECOMING CREATED WHEN THE THETAN’S ATTENTION IS DIRECTED TO THEM.

“The ‘permanently created’ portions are those times of overwhelm and indecision which almost entirely submerged the thetan’ s own will and awareness.

“Aberration itself must be calculated to occur. The existence of a time track only makes it possible for it to occur and be retained. THUS A THETAN’ S FIRST REAL MISTAKE IS TO CONSIDER HIS OWN PICTURES AND THEIR RECORDED EVENTS IMPORTANT…
————————

That last part which I put in caps sounds a lot like nondualism, doesn’t it? With regard to the makeup of the ego.

Apparently you elect to deny that I obliterated your mental-mass-dispersal tone arm theory. If the tone arm moves due to mental mass then the mental mass, that is to say, the ‘thoughts’, would have to be in the path of the electric current, that is to say, the thoughts would have to be located in the physical body! (you can’t separate the thought from its mass) But Hubbard says the mind, which is the domain of thoughts, is separate from the body. Your argument is disproved. It isn’t complicated.

Even an imaginary reality must have rules but when you take those rules all the way to their logical conclusion they will undo the false reality they’re assigned to create. That’s where excessively verbose high-sounding gibberish has its utility. That’s what you offered me instead of an argument. That’s what Hubbard offered to poor souls who are dazzled by pseudo-intellectual poppycock.

I especially liked the part of your offering where Hubbard referred to parts of the “time track” as being permanently in a state of creation! The past is in a state of creation??? Do you have any idea the absurdity of that?

Actually, that was my own idea off the top of my head. Now that I’ve reviewed the references, Hubbard’s idea is that the majority of mental records of the past are re-created when the person’s attention is directed to them (either intentionally [as in memory] or through restimulation by something similar in the environment). Auditing a particular incident enables the person to cease this automatic re-creation of it. Some incidents (a minority) are in a state of (short of auditing) “permanent” or continuous re-creation, which relates to what you said here:

“I especially liked the part of your offering where Hubbard referred to parts of the ‘time track’ as being permanently in a state of creation! The past is in a state of creation??? Do you have any idea the absurdity of that?”

To be clear, the time track is not “the past”; it’s a record of the past. And do you realize that many others besides Hubbard have had the view that there exists a complete record of the past, including the ancient idea of the Akashic Record?

On the idea of a “state of creation,” this is also described by Hubbard as “create-create-create = create again continuously one moment after the next.” (FOT) I don’t think this is any more “absurd” than a number of prominent physicists’ theories of reality as digital or a simulation. Other physicists disagree, but they don’t stoop to calling it “pseudo-intellectual poppycock,” because none of the theories about reality have been proven.

We tend to get a little haughty sometimes, because our minds are already made up. But I think discussions would be a lot more productive if the attitude were more receptive. Don’t you? More fun too.

Marildi, I have no knowledge of ‘prominent physicists’ who have ideas about reality being digital or simulated. The so-called ‘akashic records’ are something I believed in when I was a hippie along with astrology but I don’t believe in them any more. Perhaps those prominent physicists believe in them and even consult them in their research.

You said : “Hubbard’s idea is that the majority of mental records of the past are re-created when the person’s attention is directed to them (either intentionally [as in memory] or through restimulation by something similar in the environment).”

May I slightly modify the wording so as to uncover the gem of knowledge hidden within?

“MOST OF OUR MEMORIES ARE REMEMBERED WHEN WE REMEMBER THEM” (!)

A ‘mental record’ is a memory, or rather, an impression of a past experience. Those impressions exist in the unconscious mind until something triggers the recollection at which point they are experienced as a memory or a fantasy in the conscious mind. Fantasies, memories and dreams are composed of impressions of past experience. That’s how it works as per everybody’s experience. No need to turn it into excessively worded gobbledygookology. Other than those impressions the past does not exist.

Sheesh, Roger. You quoted my description of how the majority of mental records are re-created, which was simply introducing the sentence that followed, but you left out that sentence and proceeded to mock the introduction to it as if that was the whole point. Here’s the sentence you left out:

“Auditing a particular incident enables the person to cease this automatic re-creation of it.”

i guess you wanted to ignore the above as it expresses what auditing is capable of and its value.

“Auditing a particular incident enables the person to cease this automatic re-creation of it.”

Memory is not a re-CREATION it is a re-COLLECTION. People who have had extensive auditing, “OT’s”, don’t demonstrate freedom from the plague of unwanted thoughts. Their demonstrated behaviors reveal fear, worry and resentments on a regular basis in ways strikingly similar to their non-scientology inferiors! That’s a real deal breaker for prospective buyers of auditing theory isn’t it?

“People who have had extensive auditing, ‘OT’s’, don’t demonstrate freedom from the plague of unwanted thoughts…That’s a real deal breaker for prospective buyers of auditing theory, isn’t it?”

Many factors are involved, including the fact that NOTs and OT 8 were altered by Miscavige. But I’ll just say that I believe there is validity to the general subject of Scientology and therefore, as Dan Koon worded it in his comment on this thread, “it would survive people ‘experimenting’ with it” to determine what indeed is useful.

Also, many modern spiritual teachers have come to see that a certain amount of “shadow work” is often beneficial or even necessary as a complement to their methods for awakening and spiritual freedom. This would include some modern teachers of nondualism, and many of their students would benefit from auditing the more formidable “memories” that are barriers to their progress.

I don’t think Dan was out of line by asking for proof. Either way, for or against. It’s easy for people to make bold claims of “facts” without definitive proof or evidence to support it. Much like what Scn does.

L Ron hubbard said he put people on a scale and just from them thinking he was able to make them 30 lds heavier or lighter in just 20 minutes. That is bullshit and the dumbest thing I ever read anywhere. I have an bs degree in electrical engineering. What causes the resistance is hand movements. And sweat. It’s that simple.

Dan Locke said, “I’d like to see your proof that thoughts don’t have mass.”

This is why Hubbard warned scamologists from studying formal logic. It would free them from scamology. The opposite of what El Con warned them would happen. 😉

“In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.”

Hi Kemist, Oh one of my favorite PLs and books by that Ron,” All About Radiation”.I really should root up a copy and frame it next to the Radiation Cert all the techs at Baton Rouge General gave me after my solid month of it.Real comments and love on thereWhat a juxtaposition that would create with Ron’s ramblings.xo

Christine, whether thoughts have mass or not, proven or not, and I don’t really care if they do or not, you must have experienced that feeling “when a weight lifted off my shoulders.” How would you explain that?

I haven’t made any claims about anything. Statements have been made on this blog about thoughts with mass, claims, but where’s the proof? Who discovered it, when? Where can one find the evidence? Is that a lot to ask for? We come from a cult where enormous claims were made without a stitch of research, investigation or proof. Have we not learned from that?

If one can’t support something one claims, is it of use to anyone at the end of the day, including oneself? I don’t know about you but I’m not so willing to be suckered into anything so blindly again. It’s more useful to know if it’s true, who discovered it, where, when?

The subjective experience of mass when you’re burdened with worries has the same relationship to empirical mass that the sweetness of love has to the sweetness of sugar. Are we going to say love has calories? Perhaps the calories of love are too small to measure. That conveniently makes the idea impossible to disprove should I have an attachment to it.

One of the really terrifying “facts” I learned on the Student Hat lectures was that “light travels at different speeds”. Hubbard “proved” this by giving the example of a prism splitting light into different colors. Since I learned this in my teen years, and have always been a fan of faster-than-light travel, I bought it hook, line and sinker.

A few years later, I happened to be talking to an actual astrophysicist. He’s been working with the Hubble for eight years, and a highly-respected scientist who studies quasars and black holes.

I whipped out the old “aha!” that Hubbard did in the lecture, and he just shook his head sadly and asked where I went to school.

To his credit, he spent a good three hours “false data stripping” me on light, wavelengths and the theory of relativity. Even brought out Einstein’s actual text on the matter. I felt so utterly stupid after this, believing a guy who didn’t even have the foggiest notion of how real science actually worked, and had a basic misunderstanding on wavelength versus distance.

His obvious misunderstanding of this principle actually calls many of his materials into question (tone scale, “theta” wavelengths, the e-meter’s workability in any way, shape or form, ARC, valences, mass, and the list goes on).

After this, I came to a basic realization: the reason Scientific method isn’t promoted, practiced or taught as part of any Scientology materials (and in fact, you never read anything even mentioning it, because you’d have to clear up the process) is that Scientologists would apply it to the principles of Scientology and determine that it is greatly flawed, that Hubbard had little idea of what he was actually talking about, and that the “scientifically proven facts” were anything but.

I’ve also noticed that logical or critical thinkers (programmers, scientists, theologians, quality assurance) are in VERY short supply in the Church. You almost never meet one in Scientology. Most Scnists tend to be salespeople, real estate, chiropractors, or involved in marketing. This isn’t a hard rule, but it is a noticeable deficit.

I’m not saying all of Scientology is bullshit. But there are too many booby-traps even in the most innocuous materials to recommend it to someone trying to find an answer. It would make a great primer for philosophy if not for this, but I think even without KSW and later justice/ethics stuff, it’s totally unusable, at all, because of Hubbard’s tendency to bullshit or make things up.

PACster, light DOES travel at different speeds, through different substances. In vacuum it goes ~300K/sec. In glass ~200K/sec It changes by refractive index of the material if my old memory serves. The higher the index, the slower.

“I appreciated the theory that traumatic incidents from the past effected present day behavior. Dianetics and the Grades seemed like a systematic approach to handling these unwanted conditions that were screwing me up.”

Of course the theory that traumatic incidents from the past affect present day behavior makes sense. Sigmund Freud published this theory in the early 1900s; it’s a central theme of psychoanalysis and the modern psychodynamic psychotherapy approaches which evolved from it.

The idea that childhood trauma can cause problems in adulthood was not new and was widely known (and accepted by both the general public and clinicians) by the time Hubbard wrote Dianetics in 1950.

Why give Hubbard credit for ideas he straight up stole from psychiatry/psychology, philosophy, other religions, etc. without crediting them?

Great post. Sums the subject up as well as anyone could. Especially liked the part about lower bridge vs upper sci-fi stuff. More than a few people including experts believe chasing endless body spirits around by means of putting endless attention on them (assuming they exist)is a great way to drive yourself crazy. No wonder it’s “confidential” till you pay thousands of dollars to find out what it’s about. Then try getting a refund, ha. I guess I’d be somewhat more willing to give the man his do regarding upper levels if it weren’t for the fact that Ron, a prolific science fiction writer lets not forget, apparently frequented a full medicine cabinet full of powerful drugs (pain pills, steroids etc) while researching these levels and throughout his later years. Drugs the like of which none of us were supposed to take. Anyway, great post. Thanks

Terra Cognita is an excellent writer. This article is no exception. I’m going to elaborate on two pieces of tech that seem to be two basic LRH constructs that we all embraced immediately.
The Tone Scale and the Conditions. Both seemed to be involitile but are they?
The tone scale has some major flaws. The conditions do too. Big flaws that don’t negate the basic ideas but pervert the technology. And they were clearly put there by Hubbard for a reason. I have discovered these various booby traps in the basics that we all took for granted were perfect. They are not.
I won’t expand on these today. I will try to clarify these for future posting.
I agree with TC that 1. Most of us got some really stable wins that we still benefit from and 2. There is some really useful and practical exercises and observations that Hubbard took from others and made much easier to use.
I view Hubbard as a very manipulative and evil person.
That being said, his constructs were part of my journey. I’m still alive, I’m happy, and I’ve learned some valuable life lessons. Did It have to cost me so much and waste so much of my time and efforts. I think not. And maybe I can prevent a few others from getting trapped the way I did.
None the less. I compare myself to those I meet and I am able to impart wisdom to them and they perceive me as a sage person. So I learned something.
Thanks again TC for taking the time to write for Mikes blog. Please do more.

Nicely written and a very forgiving essay Mike. It just seems to be a common thread in human nature that we have ideas, slogans, acceptable behaviors, political correctness etc shoved down our throats more or less as an historical observation but more so as a modern day practice. Yesterdays urgency’s become tomorrows history lesson told from the viewpoint of whoever is deemed the authoritarian on the matter (God forbid the media or a keyboard warrior) or from their opposition. The politics of the human mind is in a never ending development or demise.
Totally agree with your bipartisan view that if there is anything usable among the vast writings or ramblings of Hubbard, it should left to the user to decide if it’s valuable or not. Not some AO who knows what’s best for others and follows the well trodden path of making a career (Ortega comes to mind) of making something 100% wrong if they don’t like it or results with them well positioned in the limelight.
There aren’t enough people of consequence in positions of power to allow the common people to have their own choices. Religion in all its forms requires for the most part, uniformity of belief within its ranks, free radicals aren’t tolerated, especially when money or power is involved.
Scientology at least pointed in a certain direction in its early days and even if bs for the reader of it, it gave others some hope and a path of self examination and answers to life I believe unprecedented in the world of human behavior. I certainly benefited from some of it and curse other parts of it.
It is so easily proven the policy that is meant to protect the technology of Hubbard is as worthless as it is impractical. You only have to look at how the Cof$ panned out. It’s as corrupt as a money hording pit of a dictatorship’s dream as it could be. Yet, I’ve sat there many times and marveled at the human reaction of relief and compassion shown in tears of joy at the result of a Dianetics session or simply running an LIC, rudiments or anything else that is real to the PC. I cannot and will not ever invalidate that persons relief and gratitude and will spit in the eye of anyone that demands sight unseen that that person as well as myself is deluded or wrong for having a session.
As far as the OT levels go, nothing delivered in the Cof$ is even close to an honest representation of what a free spirited human being or ‘Thetan’ represents or is. In the vastness of the human potential capability to think and act the only unconditional definition worth a hoot is yours. If such a technology exists to where you can actually learn to think for yourself or pull yourself out of the demons that plague you, do you think a bigoted or opinionated person is going to tolerate it? It’s a jungle out there of that there is no doubt. Leaders feel at all times that their power in under threat or opposed, therefore police,militarists, bankers & lawyers exist in all countries and at all levels of power.
Good idea, make all of Scientology public and make it free and see what happens. The experiment of trying to control it failed miserably and ended up with an ao like Miscavige ripping people off. I never agreed with something like the SO fundamentally controlling things either. The fact I was right makes me sad.

You think Tony Ortega thinks he “knows what’s best for other people”? And he’s made a career by making $cientology “100% wrong”?

Sorry, I just don’t see it. I’ve only ever seen great reporting from someone who wants to expose the abuse, lies and criminality of the CO$. Frankly, I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass about any supposed efficacy of “the tech”.

Anyone I know who has dealt directly with Tony respects his continued persistence regarding exposing Scientologies crimes and lies. From my observations he is an excellent journalist. Having decades of experience with “the tech” I thank Tony for exposing how much of it is booby trapped to control members and exploit them.

Yes, I’m so happy he’s there, feel exactly the same way about him. He does excellent work.

And why, pray thee, should there not be this anti-scientology? It’s a free world and if that’s how people feel about it, so be it. It’s their right. The more and more I see people coming out of scientology and not just the cherch, the better I feel.

I certainly didn’t say Ortega’s work is not warranted nor valuable – it’s extremely valuable and necessary. Scientology needs to exposed for the horrible organisation it is but I’m entitled to have an opinion on the he runs his site or the hate that flows from his commentators I don’t agree 100% with.
What is it with this anti-Scientology movement? Unless you agree 100% that it’s ALL bad you must be a Scientologist sympathizer then? Geezers… what a bigoted viewpoint.
This site is frequented with fence sitters connected with Scientology and I for one welcome them and try to make sure they aren’t hacked to pieces with the haters who take every opportunity to shove their viewpoint down someone else’s throat. Hubbard fucked up many things but he wasn’t wrong about gradients.
A little compassion goes along way.

“making (something) wrong” is a Scientology practice. Things are either wrong or right – or variations of these, depending on a person’s take on it. In Scientology’s case the things that are right about it are being heavily overshadowed by things that are definitely wrong. You can’t excuse the number of things wrong with Scientology with a few things that may be right. Wrong things are not cancelled out that way.

Excellent post, Mike! You took a very sober look at the cherch and the results were great. Take it or leave it. Simple as that. Or, take some or leave some, as you indicated. There’s really no need for any drama. At all! So…I still don’t understand the raging drama that exists in the lives of those still in. Relax everyone. It’s not that big of a deal….

A religion is a fossilised philosophy. Philosophic points of view can and do change, religions do not; or when they do they become a “new” branch of the religion, still set in stone but different to the original, which is why there are so many flavours of major religions. Even Scientology has independents and I suspect more than a few groups of independents who believe in something slightly different to the rest.

There are however certain toxic ideas with most religions that should die but are somehow ported to the splinter group. The main one being we are the only true version of this religion. The next being any who dissent from our flavour of the religion should be ostracized by the rest, ostensibly to keep the “flock pure”.

Scientology, as practiced by followers of David Miscavige, practice disconnection. We all know they do but they refuse to admit it and own it, preferring instead to claim it is a personal choice of a member of their flock to disconnect from a person deemed by the church a dissenter; the church does not encourage the practice and believes in family etc. The Jehovah’s Witnesses, JWs, by contrast are quite open about their policy of “disfellowshipping” and there are videos of JW conventions where they openly promote the practice to the faithful as a means of keeping the flock pure and making the dissenter realise the error of their ways.

The JWs may well fail soon because, unlike the church of scientology, they failed to instil into their members the need to make donations, they do not even tythe. Hence the JW head office, a place called Bethal, is having to make long time “staff” effectively redundant. These staff, like those who grew up in scientology, have limited skills to deal with regular society and no qualifications because education in “worldly” ways is considered bad and one should drop education as soon as possible and work for Jehovah.

As a fan of “V for Vendetta” I do believe ideas are next to impossible to kill off, but that should not stop us trying.

Very well thought out and written. As a newb who got her feet wet but never all the way in the water… I can objectively see merit in some of the techniques LRH presented.
After I read Dianetics and Fundamentals of Thought and the ART Course and did the lessons, got graded and signed up for a life repair, I discovered I wasn’t going to get the auditing which I anticipated after reading Dianetics. I even had an independent field auditor who was really great (or so I thought). But then I found out the “taste” of auditing was only to hook me and pressure me to “go up the Scientolgy Bridge”. He even admitted this to me.
I recently bought a nice used emeter and look forward to learning how to use it via some independent Scientologists as a tool to understand the hidden areas which do cause trouble in my life. I also have a full set of the old red tech volumes which are interesting.
After my experience I realized there was something to the emeter as a sort of bio feedback tool. I am happy to learn about it on my own and work co-auditing and solo with my husband. I hope the organization does dissolve so the good can come out and the “cancer” die off.
To me there is value in some of the tech. The mind is amazing and can “move mountains” to quote a famous literary book. 😉
Is it a religion? I do not believe that.
I agree with those who say by removing Mr. Miscavage and the free ride tax status and opening up the tech and ideas to be further explored will benefit the best parts to reemerge and be discovered and freely utilized to really help people.
It has been said there are no new ideas in the world. So, regardless of where he (LRH) got them, he did put them together and did for a time help some… I think he was on to something. I also think he was insane… Bi-polar… Whatever. I do NOT believe for a minute that we were trapped in a volcano by the evil bad king who then enslaved our souls. We can enslave ourselves pretty well on our own.
When I told my auditor I was backing out of the Purif and wanted my money back (which I did get BTW); he said why would I give up my immortal freedom for a few bucks! I told him I am not at all worried about my immortal being. I am already immortal and my spirit guides me always toward full awareness. The tech would (and will) just be a help tool to identify some traits which are not helpful.
So, I will keep meditating and doing yoga and practicing mindfulness and presence… In the moment.
My heart is heavy when I think about the evil which has occurred, again, in the name of religion. I feel for all those who were and are harmed and I pray the truth will come out.
And yes we all have good and not so good within us. This is the nature of duality.
Thanks for the great and balanced perspective terra cognita.
Peace 🙂

For sure the subject ossified after LRH’s death (or more accurately, after all his uncomplied with orders were complied with around 1991). Stlll, LRH’s main thrust was always forward. He never went back, for instance, and determined whether Creative Processing, which he banned in the mid-50s because some banks beefed up under it, would now be workable after clearing, OT levels and NOTs. That is a pilot that could and should be done. Just one example of new tech applications that might or might not be worthwhile. Another is Power Processing applied to different case conditions, as practiced by Dexter Gelfand in California. If there is validity to the subject in general, it would survive people “experimenting” with it. Bear in mind that LRH had people helping him with tech and research from the earliest days. Look at the original Tech Vols and note the number of bulletins that were written by others; it is probably more than 1/4. Or close to it.

+1 These are two concrete proposals for research, and the workability of either would be a testable hypothesis. If scientology – using that term in the broadest, generic sense – is ever to become a real science, we need hypotheses that can be tested by objective evidence.

Creative processing can be very light, literally child’s play. Long before I’d heard of Scn, around the age of 4 I was mocking up spaceships and monsters for amusement. I think the majority of kids do things like that; a question to investigate might be why so many lose the ability as they get older. The simple form of creative processing that Dennis Stephens called Remedy of Importances is useful for banishing the blues and brushing mental cobwebs away – but that’s just the subjective experience of the few who use it, and not easy to measure objectively.

Ah, the Hubbard supporters are starting to come out of the woodwork, feeling that this comment area is a safe zone (I see Sheeplebane’s appeared from the wilds of South Africa; if he could update us on what’s happening down there, I’d appreciate it). No, it’s not a safe zone, not while I’m around.

The homophobia, the sexism, the false claims of scientific proof, the falsified biography including Stolen Valor, and the harm caused by the Putrif are all inherent in the philosophy and are promulgated to this day, even by the Indies. The philosophy does not deserve the right to live, and should not die the natural death that it was sentenced to the moment KSW was published. There is no argument that can be made for the other side. The baby was stillborn and the bathwater is raw sewage. Dump it out when it can’t harm anyone, then burn the bathtub.

Alfred Jarry gave us the perfect sentence for Scientology, both the church and the subject: destroy everything, including the ruins.

Espi, unfortunately there probably will be Neo-Scamologists around for another 80 years just like there are a few Neo-Nazi’s still around. The groups will be composed of about 50% fools (dupes) and about 50% evil people. The dupes will be screeching about how the police, militarists, bankers, lawyers, etc. are out to destroy their ideas and thus freedom. Just like Neo-Nazi’s now do.

The problem with your attempt at an insult is that I not only admit to being an asshole, I’m proud of being one, and people here know that. That’s still better than being a Ronbot who thinks that he can take any word, put a “ness” after it, and create a new adjective.

Strangely enough, when I had a colonoscopy a month and a half ago, my gastroenterologist didn’t mention the presence of a head up my ass. The two benign polyps, yes, but not a head. You think he would have mentioned that.

Please tell me why I have my head up my ass. You’re making an assertion without providing context. For someone who is such a superior communicator thanks to L. Fraud’s lessons, you certainly aren’t applying proper communication techniques.

C’mon man, in your world there are only assholes and Ronbots. It’s all black and white. I don’t like Scientology any more than you, but there should be, at the very least, a bit of understanding to comprehend the scene. Plus I’m a bit prejudice. I don’t like people who don’t like cats.

If Scientology can keep people going int their course rooms, they have LRH’s writings telling and training them on auto-pilot what to do to keep their orgs and missions going.

A certain number of people who find LRH’s writings sufficient for their lives, will have LRH ordering them what do do, so long as they still allow themselves to have courses and follow LRH’s methodical organizatoinal writings which lay out the whole multi-echeloned subject.

Miscavige is laying waste to $camology. With the OECs and HCOBs and other books destroyed at Flag and mostly likely most other orgs by Command Intention, the newbies don’t know what it is, frankly, other than sweating in a sauna and spinning around poles. It’ll be the oldies who still have the HCOBs who’ll keep it going but it’ll probably die when they do – IMO.

Friends of Ron even in the 1950s, had more realistic views of Hubbard.

Martin Gardner, in the 1950s, wrote of Hubbard, in Gardner’s “Fads and Fallacies” (1952, updated 1957)

p. 263

“….Friends vary widely in estimates of what makes Ronald run To some he is an earnest, honest, sincere guy. To others he is the greatest con man of the century. Still others regard him as basically sincere, with just a touch of the charlatan, and now a tragic victim of his own psychosis….”

Nothing’s changed from day one of Dianetics.

Hubbard started as a crank and died thinking he was infested with “body thetans” which were his own discovery. And “body thetans” got Ron and chased him to his death.

Charlie Manson co-wrote a Beach Boys song with Dennis Wilson. But he was still a murderous psychopath. The damage that Hubbard’s philosophy and leadership created far outweighs whatever good came out of any of it. I may have taken away a few spiritual nuggets in my time, but the damage done in the process will never justify the experience. In short, was it worth it? Absolutely not.

‘throw out the baby with the bath water’, Lron was an ugly baby and his ‘tech’ has been shown to be bulls*%t. Dianetics is an adventure in false equivalency and verbal spewage. There is nothing there that should attract anyone. For those who are rudderless, the ‘rules’ of ARC and Affinity and the Tone Scale are a trap, a trap that can and does suck in the devotee and get them on the rails to KSW. KSW actually means do anything to keep the cash flowing. {Keep the Shekels Working?}

Recent studies show that memories that are accessed often have more connections in the brain. Trauma that is constantly relived will have more dendrites and more effect on the person. This is Science, not Lron’s 1940’s babbling. Brain chemistry is a real thing. Lack of Lithium can cause depression. Clozapine can cure schizophrenics, I have seen it.

Lron was naughty boy who roped in too many well meaning people. It is time to trash the whole thing and let the lawyers argue over the bones.

Yes, Chris Shelton is a good, dear man and I don’t know what he’d say about crushing the car or selling it for parts. But I do know that the Lron ‘tech’ can only be used to crush the independent spirit of all devotees, for the financial or egotistical gain of any guru.

Hi zemoo, I really see the point you make in your well thought out and written post.I get myself hung up at times on the fact that I want those out who want to be Indies, well that is their choice.I cannot trust this entire cult to live up to the word they spout because turn around and the whole scene shifts.Ron,David and The Tech, it is all there now for only the very few chosen whales,celebs,folks with more money than brains and the poor sheeple trotting along behind forever.Love U,

I would add one more consideration to this essay: To whom does this apply?

I agree:if you are a recovering scientologist, you might as well decide to mine your “education” for nuggets (or dingleberries). And if it’s only to come to terms with the ideas you thought were so vital.

If you haven’t been “in,” there’s no reason to look to Hubbard for anything. His “research” is not flawed; it is non-existent.

Sure, a broken clock is right a couple times a day. But that’s hardly a good enough reason to settle for such a time piece. Especially when superior alternatives are easily available.

“Many people have had wins in auditing. Many are convinced auditing changed their lives. Many go on hoping. Others harbor major resentment at being ripped-off years ago. Whichever is the case, VALIDATE YOUR WINS, and accept your losses.”

No.

No, I will not grant credence to the brainwashing results.

No.

I will not sully my future – because by “validating my wins” I would personally give my stamp of approval to that brainwashing – I would be then brainwashing myself – applying the stick to my own head, and pulling it forward with me into the present and the future.

Having escaped the trap I would be then dragging it with me and staying blinded by my own volition.

Okay, then do the other part. Accept your losses. Look, the point of the article is for each of us to practice Scientology as we see it. If you think that it’s a pile of horseshit then consign it all to the trashcan and then find the technique of self improvement that works for you.

secret, those of us who had wins enjoy validating them, that’s all, and should be able to do so without being made wrong by anyone else. No one’s forcing you to do anything. Wins are subjective. If someone says they’re happier, or is no longer bothered or held back by something that he or she was once experiencing, who are you, who am I, to evaluate this person as having been brainwashed? I don’t know that; you don’t know that. We have opinions, and each of us is entiltled to our opinions certainly. Opinions are not facts.

Yep. That’s OK with me too. I won’t be telling people they don’t have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. Sorry if I came off wrongly – I was protesting the “command” style of the passage, it read to me as a command. It scratched me wrong.

I HAD wins. Huge massive constant etc – and I’ve shit-canned the entire lot. I don’t give a tin-shit about any of it. So I won’t validate those.

I probably came off harshly. It was an itty bitty part of a decent article.

I’ll plead overreaction. I do have to put up with a lot of this type of communication in my daily life, but I’ve got to be very careful how much and how I protest.

I can’t just tell then to F off with the opinionated blind cult speak.

1. I had a lot of success with the COS. To wit:
a. the communication and intention drills (WAYYY overdone and clumsily written and carried out)
b. word clearing saved my life and enabled me to have a career based on true understanding (WAYYY overdone and clumsily carried out)
c. The lower level auditing and training made me a more effective person. (WAYYY overdone and clumsily carried out)

2. The COS traumatized me with over-regging for services and over-demanding my commitment to the “clearing the planet”. (11PM mandatory meetings? Lower condition assignments? Scientology more important than family or career? 120 hour work weeks for $5 and no moonlighting.)

3. The tech or writings of Scientology are full of overblown results and specious reasoning. “Science” is the wrong word to use in association with Scientology. The organizational texts are unworkable in any group I’ve been associated with. Stat management is bad management for most parts of most organizations. Ubiquitous “Laws” that are simply made up wishful thinking.

4. There are wonderful bits of wisdom throughout the organizational texts that LRH could be proud of. Hubs came up with new methods when psychiatry WAS barbaric and really did lobotomies and used shock treatment. Times have changed but mental practitioners rely more heavily on prescribing drugs than ever.

5. Scientology should come clean. I mean end disconnection, end the RPF, end heavy regging, lighten up lower condition assignments, treat members with love and compassion, drop the military, become a true non-profit, open up it’s $ books, allow part-time participation, focus on education and processing, and end fund raising for unneeded buildings. Reduce the bureaucracy. Help field auditors. Reduce processing costs to match what the public can pay. Get money out of the Scientology equation. End the wars and crusades on exes or detractors. Develop classiness in all things. Insist on healthy families. Pay taxes. Sell the cruise boat. Find a humanitarian effort that’s real (like teaching poor kids to read or get better grades without recruiting them).

6. Tens of thousands of us exes really wanted to save the world and willingly gave up careers, education, money, our lives, and family relationships in what we thought was a noble cause. Now the exes are united in an effort to snuff out the militaristic, money grubbing sadism that has evolved.

7. David Miscavige’s emotional state is the key. As long as he can maintain his belief that’s he’s right, nothing will change and the siege mentality will continue and the church will shrink and new buildings will be build and new “technology” will be released.

“Times have changed but mental practitioners rely more heavily on prescribing drugs than ever.”

Psychiatrists, as M.D.s, are the only ones by state and federal law that can prescribe medication. Because they’re M.D.s they can command a much higher fee for their time, and managed care has made sure that they now mostly only prescribe medication because it is more cost effective for a psychologist or masters level therapist to provide it. At one time psychiatrists did therapy in addition to medication, or even instead of medication.

“Mental practitioners” such as psychologists and masters level psychotherapists have never prescribed medications. And they provide most of the mental health therapy treatment in the US.

For example, in the state of Georgia which has a population of 9.7 million people, there are:
1,081 Licensed Psychiatrists (M.D. degree)
3,968 Licensed Psychologists (Phd degree)
29,059 Licensed Masters Level Therapists (i.e. Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, etc.) (Master of Science or Master of Arts degree)

Hi Terra Cognita, Thank you for a fascinating series of your story.I love reading the experiences of others in or out of cos and never ins too.You have a sharp sense of what you took from Ron that was good and what you left behind.Did I interpret that correctly?I really do not have a problem with those who want to independently use Ron’s tech.It is when it is used to harm or hurt one person or many,that I get very upset.
You are amazing.XO

Perhaps ‘baby in the bathwater’ is also an example of flawed logic? It suggests there is something that can be cleaned, taken out and dried off and swaddled. But this isn’t two separate objects. It’s partially unproven principles and thoughts and rambling sci-fi and countless euphoric success stories and star-high goals all rolled into one. It’s statements about life written in the absolutist style of dictatorships.

I explained cult indoctrination to a friend with this metaphor: It’s not like something you can pull out of yourself. It’s like drops of ink in water – and you’re the water.

Yes, you could apply a filter to the water – but how do you filter a brain, mind, personality, body, memories, patterns? Life isn’t something you can strain. That’s where these cute pithy comparisons fall down.

The tech is already on the net. There are already indy groups, some who appear to re-enact the scientology ethics-admin engram and others who may be more liberal and open to asking questions and exploration. Does the world care?

Scientology would have to be examined honestly as to what it does, the dangerous, the useless and the beneficial. Would anybody qualified really take the time? To learn what? That modern therapy and psychology is more effective and less harmful? Scientology falls down on its stupendous claims. Take those away and what do you have?

Sorry about the rant. The mention of babies and bathwater and scientology in the same sentence really gets me going.

Excellent summation, Terra Cognita. All of that being said, and the possibility of something “workable” in the vast tracts of land defoliated of paper trees that are the collected work of LRH, it all still comes entirely too often to a sifting through the ashes for something valuable in retrospect among a gradually growing group which will always be rather small in relation to the collapses of similar, but larger and more established institutions.

If there were some great bronze altar topped with a great flame into which the collected works- all of them- of LRH could be deposited in return for a percentage of the lost texts of antiquity, like the lost works of Plato, Archimedes, or Livy, it would be worth the burning. Compared to even the small list of known non-extant texts, the complete works of LRH are very weak sauce. Add to that the unknown titles of the destroyed contents of the libraries of Baghdad or Alexandria, and even a word for word trade would rank among the greatest deals in history, truly worthy of the superlative adjectives invented to promote the Church of Scientology.

I want to comment on and edit what you wrote, from my point of view, of getting declared before I got in, before I became a member, 19 yrs ago.

I may hold the record for getting the fastest declare. It was a few days. Just got a bk one demo and did a couple of intro courses. I got a huge win from the demo and the same with the two courses, but during the few days spent there, I found the place to be totally aberrated, to point of scary, and long story short, I told them that they were insane, and was declared. I was confounded as to how and why someone would or could make such a mess of such a good thing.

Since then, I have acquired all the text books and read them more than once or twice. Long story short, I found lots of very high theta data. It has been a lifesaver many times over.

(I was actually doing my own version of “scientology” for 27 yrs before I learned about dianetics from a TV commercial, and read the book and contacted the church and got a demo and did a couple of courses. I saw the truth and value in it, immediately. It was eureka. It was exactly what I was desperately. looking for for 27 yrs, but did not find it.)

I have applied the data from “how to study scientology: from New slant on life, to a very high degree and did my own thinking and research and built my own bridge. In a way, I did what Hubbard did, study life, people and relationships, and families, and cultures, what made good sane people and what made people insane, what makes good children and what makes fucked up children, and did a lot of reading I found less than one percent of what Hubbard said and did to be correct.

It is heavily laced with false and limiting data, false observations and wrong whys and wrong answers. His dianetics auditing idea is basically correct, but there is some false data in bk one. But some very accurate. too. His scn auditing methods are crap. Some scn data is good and much of it is crap. Hubbard never did really learn how to audit.

But the basic concept or idea is true. It takes a lot of time (actually a life time), of knowledge and experience and research and evaluation work to separate the true data from the false and limiting data and lies and traps and find the true knowledge and build a new and true bridge. I have done it.

To do so, I have read and studied a lot of work by many people in the fz..

Quoting you: (My comments interspersed.)

LRH’s Body of Work

Everyone agrees LRH was a prolific writer. Whether what he wrote was pure fantasy or not, we shouldn’t dismiss the possibility that there exist kernels of truth, and resist the urge to throw out the baby with the bath water.

D> Yes, true. But l would say it this way:

Everyone agrees LRH was a prolific writer. What he wrote was not pure fantasy and not all true either. It does contain kernels of truth (very high theta data). It is the only data on earth that can truly resolve the problems of the mind and life when done right. And we must be sensible, dialectical, rational and objective (truth seeking for the greatest number of dynamics) and resist the urge to throw out the baby with the bath water.

My local ice cream maker is a crazy old hippie. I don’t care, however, that he didn’t invent the product all by himself, doesn’t add enough marshmallows to his rocky road, and that his sherbet sucks. I just know he makes the creamiest, best chocolate ice cream in town.

LRH may have suffered from bouts of insanity and he may have been bi-polar. He may have been delusional from day one.

D> Yes, he suffered from bouts of insanity and was delusional, and and had multiple personalities (and was as much a genius as he was a conartist and a criminal) and I suspect he was also channeling here and there, by possibly more than one entity.

The life he lived at home,(or the personality he was at home) was totally different then the life he lived (and personality) he was to the group or in the church was very different. You will see this if you read the accounts of his son Ron De Wolfe and his grandson Jamie De Wolfe.

He clearly wasn’t the saint the present day church would have us believe.

D> He was not believed to be a saint or anywhere near it, even back in the 50s; Read Dianetics in Limbo, by Helen O’ Brian. It is on line.

Also read the books, A piece of blue sky and Messiah or Madman, and Barefaced Messiah.

Even if the Church of Scientology crumbles and dies, LRH’s work will live on. Physical buildings can be destroyed. Ideas and beliefs are harder to purge.

D> The buildings could be destroyed. But it would be sad to see the local ideal org building be destroyed. It is a nice piece of work and cost big dollars. The local staff built it. They would fight to defend it.

But ideally I would like to see it go under new independent management, where public can do courses like you say. I would love the opportunity.

But barring some miracle, that would unbrainwash the present staff and members or get rid of them, that is unlikely.

The main thing is that the criminal DM has to go. And that would cause big issues about all the money stashed. He operates that, as his money. Via usurption or and hi jacking, artifice and wile, he also operates as if he owns scientology and the cos.

The Basics

For me, the real basics were those concepts to which I was exposed when I was first introduced to Scientology: The ARC triangle; TR’s and the communication formula; the Tone Scale; and even the more basic ethics tech. Stats and conditions and the Data Series were a revelation.

I appreciated the theory that traumatic incidents from the past effected present day behavior. Dianetics and the Grades seemed like a systematic approach to handling these unwanted conditions that were screwing me up.

D: It is not a theory. Traumatic incidents from the past, do effect present day behavior. It is fact. The TIR rendition of dianetics processing by Frank Gerbode is a huge improvement of original dianetics. Others like Bob Ross and Zivorad Slavinski, Dennis Stevens, Geoffrey Filbert, and Electra have made further improvements.

Did I justify tech and policy and lectures that didn’t make sense? You bet. Did I become disillusioned of becoming “clear” as described in Dianetics? Yep. At every level and on every course, I knocked my head on ideas and principles that were “over my head” or “just didn’t seem right.” Eventually, I even became disabused of the notion that the e-meter was effective at locating “charged” areas in need of handling.

Many people have had wins in auditing. Many are convinced auditing changed their lives. Many go on hoping. Others harbor major resentment at being ripped-off years ago. Whichever is the case, validate your wins, and accept your losses.

D> Many people have had wins in auditing. Many are convinced auditing changed their lives. It not only changed my life, it absolutely saved my life, not once, but several times.

Many go on hoping. Others harbor major resentment at being ripped-off years ago. Whichever is the case, validate your wins, and accept your losses.

To many, dianetics and scn are too high of a gradient and the only reason they got in, was that they were duped and coerced and tricked via artifice and wile and “sold” and conned to get in.

These kinds of people are the wrong kind to get into such stuff and have, in such an organization.

Organizations such as the Freemasons, Odd Fellows and others make people go through extensive testing and screening before they are allowed into the org.

The Not-So-Basics

Many believe the grade chart levels beyond Clear are Fantasyland, and OT 3 is a 1950’s space opera. Do these upper levels produce results? Not as advertised. Worth saving? Certainly not for the majority of these readers. Might anything of value in the OT bands be salvaged? Not that I can spot.

Does this mean Jane from Jacksonville shouldn’t continue to research and explore what LRH started and open up her own practice? Not at all. All the power to you, Jane. You go girl. (Just be sure to let me know when you finally figure out how to go exterior at-will with full perceptics.)

D> Yes, I agree.

Logical Thinking

“LRH was crazy and therefore everything he wrote is rubbish” sounds reasonable but isn’t logical. “LRH wrote Dianetics. LRH’s research was flawed. Therefore people aren’t affected by past trauma,” is another example of illogical thinking. Everything he wrote may very well be garbage, and past trauma may have nothing to do with present time neurosis. But logically, we can’t jump to this conclusion.

Unlike what passes for Scientology education, people should reject those ideas which don’t make sense, and retain those that do.

Kudos to Chris Shelton and his essays on critical thinking.

Religion and Keeping Scientology Working

All religious beliefs and practices eventually become set in stone and closed to revision and interpretation by all but a select few. Most churches won’t admit to this in writing. The Church of Scientology is an exception.

D> The Church of Scientology is an exception. Should read: The Church of Scientology is an not exception.In fact Hubbard’s words are deemed more absolute by cos hierarchy than any other churches on earth. Only DM seems to have the self proclaimed authority to rewrite, and improve the tech.

Like someone said: The worst lies are the one’s that are almost true. The more truth there is on a cognitive set up, the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the embedded lies in place, which are then believed and not evaluated and often argued and defended to death.

To expand upon Hubbard’s words: Not knowing the difference between a belief and a fact is the basis of all insanity and incompetence, and much conflict and much failure on earth.

To find the problems with scientology, apply scn to itself.

LRH touted KSW—Keeping Scientology Working—as the only way to preserve the integrity and workability of his technology. What this policy did was close the door to growth and development and hasten the church’s demise. In any other field—be it mental health or the energy industry—prohibiting R & D (research and development) would be organizational suicide and never be accepted.

D> Yes, indeed. KSW was defined wrong. It contained a lie and a trap. It contained the hidden agenda, to be a covert Trojan horse money making machine, to keep the money rolling in.

“Build a better bridge” , should be the only “mantra” promoted.

LRH’s work will not survive under the cloak of religion—especially as practiced by its present regime. Though blasphemous to the faithful, if the Church of Scientology has any future, it will be at the hands of independent mental health practitioners, and not under the auspices of religion.

D> Yes. Very true. Though blasphemous to the faithful, the kooliaid drinkers,

In Summary

The Church of Scientology in its current incarnation is not worth saving. Salvaging bits and pieces of LRH’s tech and policy is.

Drop the copyrights, open up LRH’s work to the public, and allow people to pick and choose the tech and policy they feel is useful. Use an e-meter. Or don’t. Conduct actual scientific studies using standard practices. Or don’t. Apply the condition of emergency to your business. Or don’t. Receive auditing from an ex-Class 8 living in rural Idaho. Or not. Makes no difference to me.

D> Yes, true.

That Scientology is a religion is debatable. I can argue for both sides. Either way, religion may have reached the end of its useful life in this world, especially one in which salvation costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and tears families apart.

New Flash: Still not declared!

Terra Cognita

D> Scientology is not a bonafide religion. It was and is (supposed to be) (it was actually a research project to develop such) a meta psychology and spiritual healing technology and science of mind improvement technology and self improvement and life improvement technology.

It was “raised” to the level of a religion for protection from the medical associations and psychiatrists and for tax exemption purposes.

Scientology and the CO$ as a religion is a very complex, very covert cognitive construct. It is only held together, and in the place it is, by argument and force, (and fear) and propaganda, artifice and wile, coercion, and egregore, and constant brain washing to make robots and puppets out of people.

Egregore (also egregor) is an occult concept representing a “thoughtform” or “collective group mind”, an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people.

To save it one must get to the root of the problem. The solution is quite simple. Move all of Scientology to Farsec (rhymes with parsec) and handle once and for all the source of suppression. Once that target is achieved, come back to Earth so that its peoples can finally get a case gain.

I always find it so interesting when people that believe in the tech are afraid to stand up and give their real name when posting. If you believe in something, why not stand up and tell the world. If you feel so much stronger from using LRH Tech, why do you need to hide behind a fake name?

If all the people that are “Under the radar” would honestly speak out to friends and family, the dwarf”s rule would be over. Then you could use the Tech and go up the “Bridge” so much easier.

I went all the way up the “Bridge” so I have the credentials to have an opinion about this. What good is the Tech and being OT when you have to hide from your own Church or group? Why are all of you “Under the radar” people that are reading this post right now so AFRAID of Miscavaige? I know people that are in their 40s, 50, 60s and 70s that are afraid to stand up and give their name. Grown adults that have lost their courage.

Hi Brian, Thank you for your post.I never gave a thought to the pros of cons of posting under my real name.If others think I am fool fine, a fool can go any where and listen to anything and who pays attention to a fool?
I use my real name because that is who I am.And I will fight this cult tooth and nail as myself.The Black Tech that was practiced on me was done knowing fully who I was. I just return the favor.You know I love all here.Yhis is a space for Truth growth love laughter.XO

Lost a post I was writing, but I wanted to refer to a good book on self-help systems. It is Sham by Steve Salerno. It takes on years of American’s infatuation with self-help systems.

Dianetics started out as a self-help craze, and that may be it’s ultimate value. However, as Sham points out, self-help systems have to be viewed critically. Not all of them are good for you and they usually lighten your pocket more than your spirits.

As a religion, I think somebody will run off with the money, leaving the true believers to declare bankruptcy as they can’t keep the buildings up.

Special Correspondent sez: “My local ice cream maker is a crazy old hippie. I don’t care, however, that he didn’t invent the product all by himself, doesn’t add enough marshmallows to his rocky road, and that his sherbet sucks. I just know he makes the creamiest, best chocolate ice cream in town.”

True ’nuff, but the crazy old hippie who makes awesome ice cream doesn’t go around touting the concoction as 100% perfect for 100% of the people 100% of the time as Hubbard did when he issued KSW then subsequently came out with the sacred ‘ethics tech’ and all it entails to enforce that twisted notion.

As for Hubbard’s “research” on Dianetics, how about NO research. It’s a fact. No scientologist, indie, freezoner, or anyone else can produce any evidence of research because there was none.

That said, I have no problem with scientology and Hubbard’s writing being available for anyone to pick and chose from as they see fit. I think that if someone has ALL of the information on a subject they should be able to make their own decisions and accept and reject at will. If someone wants to invest with Bernie Madoff, more power to them. If someone wants to take a cold coffee enema to cure their lumbosis, go for it. If someone wants to spend their life meditating in a cave, they have my blessing. If someone wants to adhere to any New Age bunk and snake oil being foisted on the public, cough up your money and take your chances.

The fact is, Hubbard was a world class con man. Scientology is all about bringing in the money and nothing else. Currently it is cloaked in religion and defended by the evil of ‘ethics’. If someone wants to participate in that to destroy other people’s lives, I say, FUCK NO.

I’m enjoying your posts. Best of luck in your journey. I do think you might be disappointed to find no interest from the scientific community in studying the writings and speeches of Hubbard. He made thousands of assertions, many of them absurd even at the times he made them. What is a physicist to do with claims such as radiation is water soluble? Hubbard’s cosmology is patently wrong, grossly and in detail. Not very encouraging to a physical scientist. As far as Dianetics, science of the mind, mental health, etc., neuroscience has developed enormously since 1950, and even the borrowed notions of Hubbard from that era are long out of date. We have research tools such as functional magnetic resonance imaging that can to a degree, actually “see a thought”. Hubbard’s understanding of computers was dated and flawed. What he understood as a computer was a von Newman computer, with separate processor and memory. Neuroscientists and many computer scientists today study neural networking computers which more accurately model the brain and lead to a very different description of how memory works.

Let me put this a different way. Mainstream medicine, while not embracing traditional alternative Chinese medicine, recognizes that traditional Asian practices are sometimes correlated with better health. And this has prompted, for example, the discovery of natural statin drugs in Red Yeast Rice, ongoing studies of Natokinase derived from, I think, soy paste, and other promising studies of Asian nutraceuticals. Thus, there is value in traditional Chinese medicine that translates into useful scientific research, even though other aspects are little better than folk art. Looking at Scientologists as a population, where is there any robust evidence that they are more healthy, wealthy, or wise than a control population so as to motivate a controlled study of any claim or technique revealed by Hubbard? I don’t see any. Best of luck and please keep writing.

Hubbard was a prolific science fiction writer but not an exceptionally good one. I don’t think he was “on to something” (Note: That’s not the same as “on something”. According to a lot of people, he was definitely “on something” fairly often.) It’s clear he did no real research. I do think that many people benefit from counseling/therapy/confession–and that is the part of Scientology that people find a true benefit from. Being accepted into a group, feeling that you’re doing something useful–I think everyone seeks that. None of that is exclusive to Scientology and indeed, people who want any of those things would get a better, more positive benefit from getting it elsewhere. And it would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

Of course, if your religious bend tilts towards aliens with H bombs, that’s a little rarer here in the real world, but I’m sure it exists somewhere without the baggage of Scientology.

Great article. Thank you. Hope everyone has a great day. Those of us in Florida will be enjoying a tropical storm later on.

On this blog I am what you say. Why? Because I fear being told I’m a spring loaded kool aided Hubbard statue lover!! Gawd, some of these people are out for blood, kid you not! Say one good word about LRH and three next thing WAM! Feels like the church outside the church I tell ya! Rrraaawwwrr!!

So I make subtle hints at the fact I still see plenty good in the tech, deluded soul that I am. Sowie..please don’t zap me.

Hi Aquamarine, we all like it when everyone or someone agrees with us one hundred percent. If I agreed with you instead of not, you wouldn’t be talking to me this way and you and I would be okay. Not so?

Of course, I love to be agreed with. Who doesn’t? Its a comfortable state.

But that wasn’t my point.

Two people can disagree by debating on the merits without insulting and degrading one another. This is frequently not a comfortable state but then if we all agreed on everything life would be a total bore.

I have contempt for the Church of Scientology for not addressing disagreements on the merits and instead handling these disagreements and protests by degrading and smearing the intelligence and reputations of the protesters..

When people here – no matter what they’re saying and whether I agree or not – get personally slammed or not so subtly shamed for sharing their information and opinions based on their own experiences, it bothers me.

I do think of us here group. Maybe we’re not a group at all but I have this concept of us as one, and I cringe when I see us doing on this blog that what we say we hate, first and foremost, about the cult.

Thanks, AquaMarine. I get you.
And yes, we are all squarely on the correct side of the fence here, as I do like to presume…
This cult performs so well in the realm of moral debauchery. Certainly, every well-indoctrinated scn-gist has suffered some degree of personal compromise and harm. The injustice of it all, and then the struggle to express, striving to expose the deceit and hidden danger and the absolute void of compassion, striving to make things right, within our selves and about the world….
We all have a lot to vent, having spent even a single day inside the bubble…

It is a very uniquely personal thing, and so powerfully emotional.
But, we are addressing a monster. It would be quite a talent, not getting personal when addressing such a monster that attacks one’s identity on such a personal level. That would be a talent that requires a certain quantity of practice and experience. To quote Ruiz: Don’t take anything personally. Don’t assume. Choose you words carefully and just do your best.

Wrong target, personally blasting one who speaks here.
Thanks for the reminder.

Thanks Terra Cognita. I’m curious to know if you think the church knows who you are? I know of several recent examples where people refused to “go in” – a crime that lead to my eventual declare. They did not get declared but were “dead filed” (in other words they noticed they were no longer getting mail from certain organizations) and a whisper campaign ensued and friends started “mysteriously” dropping away. (I guess david miscavige got tired of hearing that Declares and Golden Rods were being published.)

You’re right, McCarran. It got way more covert. They stopped posting Declares cuz too many of them and also seeing some big time OL’s that people know and love being declared may make others start questioning and leaving. In my case it was as you said, a whispering campaign. No one asked or ordered me to “come in.” Yet in the Black PR they spread about me to my friends, all while asking for any KR’s they could drum up on me (yes they asked everyone who knew me to write KR’s so that they could “get the goods on her”), they told everyone that I was ordered to come in and handle it and I refused several times to come in. That is so untrue. But then with the church truth has nothing to do with it. They will root out all suspected dissidents even without a scrap of evidence to prove they are as they think they are. But the worst is they will demand all family and friends disconnect from this horrible person. I also think they don’t publish the goldenrod on people anymore because it contains libel an slander, things which people can sue them for.

My experience is similar to Terra’s. I wrote various articles for a particular blog – you inevitably get found out. HCO studies these in minute detail and links threads from various articles to people they know are disaffected, things that you’re not really aware of when under the emotion of writing (or have got to a point of not really caring any longer). They get a hint who it might be, show it to people who know you and voila! They say it sounds like you and you’re dead filed unless you’re willing to go in and PROVE it’s not you. It’s the same as being declared. I’m not ‘declared’ but still have to do steps A-J (by now I think its A-ZZ), so same difference. When you’re writing on these blogs, you’re effectively out and disconnected, unless you’re very discreet. Writing articles isn’t being discreet! Having said that, great article and I agree with every word.

To my knowledge, the church doesn’t know who I am. I’m not afraid of offending anyone and I don’t have any family inside. Nor I don’t care if I’m declared. What I’m trying to avoid–for at least as long as possible–is not being hassled. Life is good for me and I just don’t want their shit on my lines.
And for the record, I am out–even if I haven’t shouted it from the mountain.

Outside Draculas Castle in town you can purchase the
complete vampire kit which includes a wooden hammer, wooden stake,
bottle of Holy water, cross, garlad of garlic, special prayers.
then to are good to go.

For extra Insurance, get a COB Wanga Doll in New Orleans.
See the Voo Doo Princess for special prayers,chants and goodies
that David Mscavige is afraid of like small children so buy the COB
Wanga Doll a Barbie doll that ridicules him.The Voo Doo Princess will hat you.

Way ahead of you, Jose! The last time my wife and I were in New Orleans, I bought one. The doll is hammered to the wall with little spikes in the hands and feet. I just love this doll because when you stick a pin in it, it emits a tiny scream. My cats, though, won’t go near it….

Once a Miscavige-ectomy is completed on scientology, the chips will fall where they may. After that the only game would be to connect the dots with what he stole from from who and where. Maybe even sift out of the ruins some original thought of value. Natural laws and scientific methodologies erode the non-usefulness of any belief system.

This is utterly brilliant, logical, rational and worth considering in all its facets. Did I get a lot from scn? Absolutely. Biggest “win” from auditing? I would add in Power and Power Plus, the latter altering my life and thinking forever. (It’s rarely used any longer and, I believe, was “downgraded” specifically BECAUSE it got such terrific results.

The comm course was fantastic, though not done properly in most orgs and missions where it became simply a tool for moving people onward quickly to the next course or auditing. I saw it taught properly elsewhere and watched lives change dramatically. Worth keeping? Yes, if taught properly and not as a “throwaway”.

With the exception of one or two items, the Code of Honour is something I’ve used personally for many years. I don’t believe it came from Hubbard. Though if it did, he was extremely remiss in following it.

I’d also add in that I did get quite a bit from various OT levels, believed that III was LRH’s personal case and visited a couple of other lives, giving personal credence to what I’d always thought possible. (Was able to verify one of them, as well.)

Thanks for the question, Christine. A particular small city in Germany was the location named in the session, one I’d never heard of before. I took myself down to a map store and confirmed its existence and its particular history at the time of the incident. Again, nothing I’d ever heard of prior to the session. Close enough for me.

Very very good. Sanest postings I have seen for a long time Terra.. well done. Exactly so. Some folks like to stir the pot just to stir the pot and keep things bubbling. Makes for good rag reading I guess…I sure have followed most of it lolol..but when you boil it down.. the above post nails it. I’m going to give you a special “cert”. “State of Soothness” lol

Scientology Inc is like a highly productive “bad PR” machine. Their PR gets worse and worse every day and they cannot change their course. Normally legal problems follow behind such bad PR with the leader being banished or jailed.

The loss of tax exempt status would go a long way towards freeing up whatever was good about Scientology. It would also help dismantling a thoroughly out exchange (ripp-off) institution.

NOTHING useful that El Con wrote was groundbreaking. Any “insightful” truth he wrote can be found elsewhere as he just plagiarized it.

“He [LRH] clearly wasn’t the saint the present day church would have us believe.” – He WAS criminally insane. His documented actions prove that beyond ANY reasonable doubt. If he had been arrested at the behest of his ex-wife over their baby daughter, he would have been eligible for life in prison without parole. And, most likely would have been murdered by the other criminals as even they weren’t that low.

throw it all out and simply obtain a adequate K-12 EDU (not what passes for that today) and you won’t miss anything.

I could not disagree more. I think there is a TREMENDOUS value in much of LRH’s work. I spent thirty five years working with LRH;s technical procedures and I am the far better off for it as a being. Yes, the Soviet style fascist organization that calls itself the church of scientology has “declared” that I am now a “suppressive person” (which is probably a badge of honor at this point) but that is a subject for another time.

Evidence of my OWN raised awareness and my OWN thousands of successes using Scientology? I hues I could if motivated write a book on these (I am not motivated to do so by the way) but … I kinda doubt you would read it if I did.

The “evidence” you request can be answered. However, it’s personal experience. How does one “prove” personal experience, what went on in one’s body or mind?

Frankly, I never expected a whole lot from the OT levels and was quite surprised at what I did get. But it was internal knowledge, not the far fetched claims with which Hubbard had labeled them. And yes, one *might* have gotten similar gains in some other field or technology or belief system. But that’s a specious argument on its face. One got it where one got it. That Hubbard took from others and claimed it as his own seems pretty clear. But where *I* got it was from studying scio. If it worked for me, it worked for me. No one can ever take it away by telling me “well, so and so thought of it first.” My response: “So what?”

Those of us who actually DID get some good things should be content/happy they got them. And no amount of derisive laughter or denigration should alter their reality. You believe what you believe and I’ll believe what I believe. I won’t try to convince you of my beliefs. And, if yours contradict mine, I won’t take them on. That’s called “living”. 🙂

Well said, Thegman. Excellent post! And Joe, well done on yours too. I like your “live and let live” attitude. You know what you know and take what good you find from the tech and throw away the rest. And don’t let naysayers convince you that “nothing happened” or “I had no wins.” Enjoy the wins you did get and ignore the rest. oH, and p.s., Happy Birthday, Joe!

I got a lot out of Scientology too. I don’t have to prove it to anyone. I also got fucked over by the organization and allowed if to happen. My bad. Scientology was a stepping stone for me. It brought me from point A to point B. I don’t regret my experiences in life. I try to learn from them.

Truth is a simple thing.
Thank goodness.
It can be hidden, momentarily, under a big pile of … overt deception.
What is required is investigation, while maintaining the presence of mind to recognize the difference between evidence and fabrication.
One thing I rest comfortably with?…

Truth need not be codified with some imaginary label, such as “K-12 EDU”.
(whatever the hell that is)
Code-language is the food and nutrient for confusion, which leads as bait to false belief.

Truth can be wholly described and universally understood by using the generally defined English language.
Or,
it can endure as hidden under intellectual chaos, using tools of deception, one of which would be the private language of a cult.
The only controller is you, and what you choose to believe.

“Those who do not let you have it, twist it, invalidate it and pretend it is something else that’s meant, are seeking to deny you not just the road out but the armor of knowledge that will guard you.”…LRH RJ 37

Does it really matter WHO does this or HOW they do it as long as this is WHY it is done?

The end result is to prevent people from achieving and enjoying freedom. If the Church of Scientology needs and wants to do this with fancy building included then the consequences become theirs.

Important Quotes

If the org slumps during this transition period, don't engage in "fund raising"
or "selling postcards" or borrowing money. Just make more income with Scientology.
L Ron Hubbard From HCOPL URGENT ORG PROGRAMMING

"We own a tremendous amount of property. We own a tremendous amount of material and so forth, and it keeps growing.
But that’s not important. When buildings get important to us, for God sakes, some of you born revolutionists will you please blow up central headquarters".
L Ron Hubbard Lecture 31 Dec 1960

"Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed".- LRH from Personal Integrity

"It is necessary to happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists of professing to believe what he does not believe." Thomas Paine

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” - Martin Luther King

“The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” - Martin Luther King

“There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

“Communication is the universal solvent” - L Ron Hubbard

“When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.” Thomas Paine

"Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world would do this, it would change the earth." William Faulkner

"The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis." Dalai Lama